Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 11 March.

LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 11 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Local Government Finance

Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on local authority capital expenditure plans for 1997–98. [17001]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): The Government forecast that local authority capital expenditure in England in 1997–98 will be £6.2 billion.

Mr. Burden: On the day that Birmingham city council meets to set its budget, will the Secretary of State congratulate Birmingham on being the most solvent council in the country, having reduced its debts by 5 per cent. in the same period as the Government have doubled the national debt? Secondly, will he explain to the people of Birmingham why the Government have cut the capital allocation to Birmingham by some 50 per cent. and education funding by 80 per cent? Why do the Government seem determined to stop Birmingham's children being educated in schools that have had all the necessary repairs?

Mr. Gummer: It is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to talk about education in Birmingham, given its scandalous history of education spending by Labour and the way in which money that should have been used for education was spent elsewhere. Birmingham's basic credit approvals for 1997–98 are the highest of the 392 authorities in the country. The hon. Gentleman should accept that his party has made a commitment that there will be no extra money, so if he wants an explanation to give to the people of Birmingham, he had better seek it from the shadow Chancellor.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that large numbers of local authorities could lay their

hands on funds for capital expenditure if they transferred their housing to housing associations and paid off their housing debts? Does not the fact that Liberal and Labour-controlled local authorities hang on to their council houses like Stalin hung on to agriculture say something about them and their political parties?

Mr. Gummer: The fact is that, under the new regime that we have put in place, in 25 Birmingham wards the local authority could spend 100 per cent. of its capital receipts if it went down the route that my hon. Friend described. Birmingham would have every opportunity to spend more if it opted for large-scale voluntary transfers as we would like and the tenants have agreed.

Ms Armstrong: Has the Secretary of State read the report prepared for his Department by York Consulting on capital challenge? Does he agree with one of its basic findings that capital challenge has skewed the decisions away from basic needs, so that authorities have been unable to address the basic needs of their communities, but instead have had to respond to the Government's lottery? Will the Secretary of State meet local authorities to discuss the matter before the Government reach a decision? Will he take that basic finding of the report into account?

Mr. Gummer: As we commissioned the report, we shall take its findings into account and discuss them with local authorities, as we promised when we started the pilot programme. What is more, Birmingham received £5.7 million under capital challenge. Local authorities that go in for capital challenge decide their own priorities. The hon. Lady wants me to continue with a situation in which we, instead of local authorities, decide where they should spend their money.

Mr. Garnier: As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) is so worried about local authority capital expenditure, will my right hon. Friend tell the House about the level of local authority capital debt across England and Wales, whether that has some affect on the public finances, and the Labour party's answer to the question?

Mr. Gummer: Birmingham's problem in those circumstances is that, if the Labour party came to power and did what it said it would—release capital receipts—Birmingham would receive no money, because it has no capital receipts. Indeed, Birmingham would receive less money from capital allocations because, as local authorities that do have capital receipts spend them, the money available to be spent on capital would be reduced—unless Labour were to decide that it would increase public spending. However, Labour has said that it would not increase public spending. It cannot have it both ways.

Royal Docks (Newham)

Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Government's plans for the continued administrative operations and financing of the royal docks in the borough of Newham. [17002]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): English Partnerships will complete certain projects in the royal docks when the London Docklands development corporation winds up, in March 1998. The LDDC is discussing with Newham successor arrangements for its other legal responsibilities.

Mr. Spearing: Apart from the legal responsibilities of the London borough of Newham, are there not significant costs in maintaining the royal docks' magnificent marine facilities—which happen to be in Newham, but which provide services for all of London? In particular, the Victoria dock project for young people provides facilities for sailing, rowing and canoeing, and the magnificent 2,000 m Olympic rowing course would be available not only to residents of the south-east but to everyone in the United Kingdom, and perhaps also to citizens of Europe and of the wider world. If there are difficulties in maintaining those expensive facilities, does he not think that some provision should be made so that an unfair burden is not placed on those who live adjacent to the docks' facilities?

Sir Paul Beresford: We are aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. I can assure him that, certainly in the short term, English Partnerships will assume many of the responsibilities and that Newham will assume some. We are currently in discussion with those two organisations, on the basis of an asset-liability package. He will also be aware of the Royal Docks Management Authority. We anticipate that, in the long term, funding for it will come from service charges to developers of the area.

Earth Summit II

Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to involve non-governmental environmental organisations in the planning for the British contribution to the Earth summit II in New York in June. [17003]

Mr. Gummer: The NGOs' involvement began with an Oxford seminar in June 1996, and continued with a Government consultation paper which was issued at the end of December. Comments on the paper are now being considered. We are in close touch with non-governmental organisations and have invited them, local government and businesses to join the United Kingdom delegation to the event and to the two preparatory meetings.

Mr. Smith: As the Minister is unlikely to be available in April for the final planning meetings for Earth summit II, what plans does he have to give more responsibility to NGOs and local authority delegations to press the United Kingdom's case? What action will he take to ensure that banks are meeting their Rio commitments? According to this week's Green Alliance report, they are failing dismally.

Mr. Gummer: We are keeping NGOs closely involved, as we have throughout. We are of course including Friends of the Earth—which, on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition, appears to have been excluded from his meeting.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will he

confirm that Friends of the Earth is playing an important part in planning Britain's contribution to the second Earth summit? Does that not stand in stark contrast to the extremely petty action of the Leader of the Opposition, who has banned Mr. Charles Secrett, executive director of Friends of the Earth, from attending his meeting with other environmental chiefs, simply because he had the temerity to write an article criticising the Labour party's environmental record?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have found that Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other organisations are particularly important in giving us advice. I have excluded no one from the discussions that we have had. I am sorry that the Labour party—which knows so little about the environment and has had so few meetings on it—has, now that it has called such a meeting, decided to exclude one of the most important organisations. Friends of the Earth has shown great independence of mind in criticising the Labour party.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: One of the issues that concerns the NGOs in relation to Earth summit II is the continuing problem of relations between the United Nations' environmental work and the World Trade Organisation, which remained entirely unresolved at the Singapore meeting. Is there any progress on that?

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that it is fair to say that the problems are entirely unresolved. It is clear that the international environmental commitments that we have entered into cannot be overthrown by decisions of the WTO. We are seeking to ensure that proper protection of the environment continues and that any argument between the two can be resolved. Britain will continue to play a creative part in that.

Mr. Meacher: As reducing carbon dioxide emissions will be such a crucial issue at Earth summit II, why did the Secretary of State cave in last night at the European Environment Council by tamely accepting a much lower level of cut than is needed? How can he pretend to green leadership in Europe when he offers only a 10 per cent. cut by 2010, whereas Germany and Austria have offered a 25 per cent. cut and the Labour party is committed to a 20 per cent. cut? Is not his problem that the Conservatives' hostility to public transport, which is environmentally friendly, and his recent cut in the funding of energy efficiency, far from helping to find a solution to global warming, have made it a lot worse?

Mr. Gummer: Every comment that the hon. Gentleman has made is wholly wrong. Britain has taken the lead and has brought other nations on board. We were the first country to go for a commitment. We are the only country in Europe to be able to cut our emissions to below 1990 levels before 2000. The Labour party is committed to spending more money on coal-fired power stations, which would increase emissions. The Labour party has the worst environmental record of any socialist party in Europe and is a laughing stock among all its neighbours. All the other Ministers at the Council of Ministers, including those from Germany and Austria, complimented the United Kingdom on our leadership and wondered how we managed to play such a role with a Labour Opposition so uncommitted to the environment.

Local Authority Services

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about replacing local authorities' services with cash allowances. [17004]

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): None that I am aware of. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has received a number of representations in connection with the community care direct payments scheme.

Mr. Thurnham: The Government say that they are in favour of more choice and opportunity. Why do they deny community care direct payments to 700,000 pensioners? Surely it is nonsense to say that town halls cannot cope with it as an optional scheme.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are often pressed to introduce programmes on a trial basis and to extend them once we have ascertained that the trial works effectively. The scheme applies to people under 65. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will follow it closely. The option of extending it remains open if it demonstrates its value.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that many local authorities are unable to carry out the tasks that they are meant to perform, such as collecting rents, renting out houses to new tenants and collecting council tax? Will he therefore be wary of giving additional burdens to councils that are so incompetent at carrying out their existing duties?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The scheme involves giving money to people so that they can acquire services or equipment, short-circuiting the normal bureaucracies. It is a cost-effective way of giving choice, flexibility and speed of response. As for the fulfilment of basic managerial functions, it is worth remembering that a 1 per cent. improvement in council tax collection rates across the country would be equivalent to £80 million to spend on local services.

Rented Housing

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new rented housing starts he estimates will be made by (a) housing associations and (b) local authorities in 1997–98. [17005]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): We estimate that the Housing Corporation will grant approximately 26,000 approvals for new rented housing association homes in 1997–98.

Mrs. Jackson: I am not sure whether the Minister was present when his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, told the Select Committee on the Environment on 10 January last year that he considered that 60,000 new starts in the affordable rented sector was "quite robust". The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the actual figure is less

than half that. I am sure that his colleague did not want to mislead the Environment Committee. Was it simply incompetence on the part of the Department in not meeting its own targets?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady is right in that I was not present in the Environment Committee, but she is also wrong. If she studies the evidence, she will see that our target was 60,000 lettings, not new starts. She knows that we meet housing need in a variety of ways besides new starts, including tenants buying their own homes and the releasing of existing houses for new tenants. The target is 58,000 to 60,000 new lettings over the year—which we shall achieve.

Mr. Wilkinson: May I say how right my hon. Friend is to emphasise the role of the private rented sector in meeting housing need? In that regard, will he and his Department have a careful look at the notorious activities of Hillingdon borough council in using public money through the Housing Corporation to promote housing association developments on green chain and public open space such as recreation ground in my constituency—a move that is bitterly opposed by local residents?

Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right. The private rented sector has an important role to play in meeting housing need. It has been very good that, since 1988, there has been a major revival in the private rented sector due to deregulation, which the Labour party bitterly opposed at the time but which has been a great success. My hon. Friend is also right to say that it is important that we protect our green belt.

Mr. Beggs: More and more elderly people and more and more disabled people like to feel that they are capable of living in their own homes. What advice are the Government giving local authorities and housing associations on an estimated reasonable percentage of new starts that should be adapted from the beginning to meet the needs of disabled people?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We give guidance through the Housing Corporation which, as he will know, has a role in overseeing the housing associations in ensuring flexibility in their programmes to provide for old people who want to stay in their own homes—something that we regard as very important.

Mr. Raynsford: Let me remind the Minister that, 20 years ago, in 1977. under a Labour Government, we started 81,000 council homes and 26,000 new housing association homes. Does he recognise that, in this last year of a discredited Tory Government, he cannot even forecast a single council start and can forecast only 26,000 housing association starts—exactly the same number as Labour achieved 20 years ago, minus the 81,000 council homes? Is not the fact that the Government have allowed the house building programme for social needs to fall to the lowest level since the end of the second world war an appalling comment on their neglect of their housing responsibilities?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are meeting housing need. I take his contribution as a plea


for higher public expenditure. He wants to go further. He should know that his idea of releasing council receipts amounts to higher public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman and his party have not done their sums correctly on this issue. Such an idea counts towards higher public expenditure.
There is another problem for the hon. Gentleman. Contrary to what he was telling listeners in the London area over the weekend, there is no correlation, no matching, between housing need and capital receipts.

Mr. Raynsford: There is in London.

Mr. Clappison: Well, let me tell him that, in London, the three authorities that have the highest council receipts are Enfield, Merton, and London City. By contrast, Tower Hamlets and Lambeth have very few, and Southwark, Newham and Hackney have none at all. If that is the hon. Gentleman's idea of social geography in London, he has a very poor grasp of geography—almost as bad as his grasp of mathematics in not realising that his idea amounts to higher and higher public expenditure.

Local Authority Housing

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total sum allowed for local authority credit approvals for housing investment in 1996–97; and what are the figures for each of the past three years. [17007]

Mr. Curry: The totals are £789 million, £1,014 million, £893 million and £869 million.

Mr. McAvoy: When so many people are homeless or living in substandard accommodation, why are the Government cutting local authority capital investment programmes even further? Is it not time that the Government released, or started to consider releasing, the set-aside capital receipts, to boost local authority housing investment and help ordinary people?

Mr. Curry: It is interesting to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) asking a question about investment in English housing. I suppose that he is getting his practice in, because, if the Labour party came to power, he would not be able to ask questions about Scottish housing. The hon. Gentleman's proposals run into the sand in three or four ways. They would involve public expenditure, no matter how the books were rigged. As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), has said, the need and the receipts do not match each other. For example, the extent to which Malvern Hills can invest is probably limited. There would have to be a massive redistribution and that would need primary legislation. The hon. Gentleman will not tell us how much he would spend, when he would spend it, or when he would legislate to spend it. The proposal is not worth a row of beans, let alone a row of semis.

Mr. David Shaw: Why is it that so many councillors believe that the capital receipts are sitting in some bank account, when local authorities have already taken them into their accounts and spent the money? It seems to be Labour councillors who believe in that mythical situation

and who do not understand that the commitment by the Labour party to spend capital receipts would involve an extra £5 billion to £6 billion public expenditure on the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party seems to think that the receipts are in an old sock under the mattress, but they are being used. They have been redirected into housing and housing revenue accounts, because otherwise rents and taxes would have to go up. That is a formula that Labour will not recognise. It is not a free option: it is an extremely expensive option. The Labour party would fiddle the accounts or betray its promise, and the latter is more likely.

Mr. Fraser: Has it not occurred to the Government that the less we invest in social housing, the more we pay exorbitant levels of private housing benefit, keep people in the poverty trap and push up unproductive public expenditure? Is that not nonsense as Government policy?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman could no doubt make out a case for increased public expenditure across the range of public services. His colleagues could make a case for an increase in spending on education or on health, but if the Government gave in to all the demands for increased public expenditure, the economy and interest rates would get out of control and we would become less competitive. We would then find ourselves in the position of too many of our continental partners, who cannot run their economies.

Opencast Mining

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against refusal by local authorities to approve opencast mining applications have been (a) heard and (b) successful since the changes to minerals planning guidance 3 in 1994. [17008]

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Some 34 opencast coal appeals have been heard since MPG3 was revised in 1994 and, of those, nine have been successful.

Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister accept that the present minerals planning guidance means that many local authorities are accepting applications, rather than going to appeal, often despite the wishes of local communities? Is he aware of the huge Windsor opencast site that threatens my constituents in Morley and people in the constituencies of Normanton, Batley and Dewsbury? Is it not true that the only way in which constituents can be sure that that application will not plague them for 15 years is for a Labour Government to be elected, so that our 10-point plan for opencasting can be implemented and local communities can resist developments that they do not want?

Mr. Jones: I note from that last remark that the hon. Gentleman is committing the Labour party to deciding planning issues before an application has even been submitted, much less determined by a local authority, considered at an independent inquiry by an inspector or reached the Secretary of State's desk. That


goes to show that the Labour party cannot be trusted with any judicial or semi-judicial system. The hon. Gentleman ought to know that all those issues have to be considered on their merits by local authorities and by the Secretary of State and that a balance has to be drawn between environmental and economic considerations.

Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited the site and is well aware of local opposition in Batley and Spen. The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) is wrong to say that we need a Labour Government to refuse permission: it is up to Labour-controlled Kirklees council.

Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend clearly says, the mineral plannings authority is a Labour-controlled authority.

Local Government Finance

Ms Hodge: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce changes to the formulae for the standard spending assessments. [17009]

Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to begin discussions of standard spending assessments for 1998–99 with representatives of local government. [17010]

Sir Paul Beresford: The 1997–98 formula is set, and discussions on the 1998–99 formula will commence later this year.

Ms Hodge: Can the Minister explain how he and his Department can preside over a scheme that adjudges Westminster the fourth most deprived place in the country, while Barnsley, which has had 18 pit closures, lies 326th? Will he confirm that the way in which the deprivation indicators interact with the overseas visitors allowance means that more than one in 10 of the visitors who go to the Ritz or the Hilton are considered by the Government to be in overcrowded conditions, and therefore attract extra grant for Westminster? Is that not a tremendous funding fiddle for the few—the very few—Conservative-controlled councils?

Sir Paul Beresford: I am not as au fait with the Ritz as the hon. Lady obviously is. She has been involved in local government for many years, so she should know better than to come up with such gobbledegook. If the 1997–98 needs assessment for Westminster, in comparison with Liverpool, had been treated as Labour treated the 1979–80 assessment, Westminster's SSA would be £25 million more than it is; in other words, under those terms, Labour would have given each man, woman and child in Westminster £126 more.

Ms Corston: Will the Minister admit that, far from there being new money for education next year, many local education authorities will face a cash cut in central Government funding? Bristol city council will have to cut its spending by £4 million next year, leading to staff cuts and larger classes. Will the Minister admit that it is Government policy to hike up the council tax, so that ordinary families pay more and get less, and that blaming it on Labour councils simply will not work?

Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Lady's local authority is becoming a unitary authority and the Labour councillors,

while talking about cuts, are planning a party to celebrate. They are raising their own pay by up to 66 per cent. and building a new £1 million council building. I understand that it is to be quite a delicate building, with turrets that have been described as reminiscent of a French chateau. Perhaps the councillors should get their act together and concentrate on providing opportunities for the people whom they should be serving.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend accept that settlements for many areas, and especially Lancashire, have been more than generous for items such as education, largely as the result of pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament, in the face of opposition from incompetent county councils? Where does he think that the money that is being asked for by leaders of Lancashire county council will come from, when the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have said on the record that there will be no more money for local government?

Sir Paul Beresford: I congratulate my right hon. Friend who, along with other Conservative Members from the area, not only pressed the Government for money but encouraged local authorities to try to produce better value for money. That is the action that authorities must take now.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my hon. Friend accept that the most objectionable feature of the formula for most people is that it cannot be easily understood? Does he accept that the doctrine of the Trinity is a kindergarten subject compared with local government finance? Can he offer any hope of enlightenment in the future?

Sir Paul Beresford: Perhaps I should offer to take my hon. Friend by the hand and give him a little guidance before we set the standard spending assessments for next year.

Mr. Dobson: Why will not the Government accept that what is needed is a fairer system than the present one, which so featherbeds Tory Westminster that millionaires in Mayfair pay less council tax than more than 7 million council taxpayers in other parts of the country>—including, for example, in Coventry, where everyone with a house worth more than £40,000 pays more than a Mayfair millionaire? Do not Ministers realise that the present system is indefensible, which is why the incoming Labour Government will change it root and branch?

Sir Paul Beresford: That sounds like a doctrine of gerrymandering. The hon. Gentleman is talking about changing the system root and branch. He does not accept that it has been worked out carefully or that it is accepted by experts—but then he does not accept experts. He also fails to accept the meaning of the word "efficiency". If, in terms of its SSA, Camden were as efficient in 1996–97 as Westminster, his local residents would save £420.34. Harlow residents would get £48.73 back, Islington residents would get £520.04 back and Barking residents would get £293.06 back. I fail to see any understanding of the word "efficiency" on the part of the hon. Gentleman.

Environmental Crime

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the conclusions of his recent seminar on international environmental crime. [17011]

Mr. Gummer: Our recent seminar was very successful and will help the UK to continue to take the lead in combating environmental crime. We are working with our partners in the EU and beyond to intensify our efforts.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the smuggling of hazardous materials and CFCs is on the increase? What action was planned at the conference? What does he propose to do to combat this crime, which is of great concern to our constituents?

Mr. Gummer: We are certainly tightening the arrangements between the countries of the EU and within this nation, and this country has the most forward-looking system. But we want to ensure that we cover the areas of trafficking, most of it from the former Soviet Union.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the diesel motor engine detrimental to public health? What is the state of the Department's research on the subject?

Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that that has much to do with environmental crime. Our air quality programme is better than that of any other country. We will get rid of both summer and winter smog within the next 10 years, so that once again we will be in the forefront of clean air policy.

Standard Spending Assessment (Rural Areas)

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review the assessments of the needs of rural areas in the standard spending assessment formula. [17012]

Mr. Curry: We reviewed it last year and we have no plans to review it this year.

Mr. Greenway: That reply notwithstanding, does my right hon. Friend agree that the resources allocated to most rural district and county councils are substantially lower than those given to metropolitan councils? The Labour party can whinge and moan all it likes about resources for London boroughs, but does it not have a lot to learn from smaller councils about efficiency and managing on low resources? When can people in rural areas expect the same funding for their schools and other services as urban areas have had for years?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend represents a rural community, as I do, and he knows that we reviewed the system last year and were told that it was about right. In the circumstances, we maintained it; but it is absolutely true that too often metropolitan areas do not recognise that delivering services to sparsely populated areas is an expensive business. I will make sure that we continue to assess their needs objectively and meet them.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why do Conservative Members point at us as though Opposition Members do not

represent rural areas, when many of us do? Does the Minister realise that part of my constituency, from Wanstead Flats to Epping Forest, is very rural? What recognition do we get for adding to people's delight at being able to visit rural areas? What has happened to the cattle of Wanstead Flats?

Mr. Curry: I have visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency, although not in an agricultural capacity. If he wishes to visit my constituency, I would be delighted to show him around; he might then understand the difference between countryside and countryside.

Local Government Finance (Warwickshire)

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the amount of standard spending assessment allocated to Warwickshire county council in each year since 1993. [17014]

Mr. Curry: Warwickshire county council's SSA has increased from £267 million to £279 million since 1993–94. During that period, there have, of course, been changes in the responsibilities of county councils, in particular in relation to police and to community care.

Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for his comprehensive answer, which clearly shows that spending on education will rise and that spending on the fire service will go up by about £800,000, or 8 per cent. Despite those substantial increases, does he agree that it is time the outdated, clumsy SSA procedure was abandoned for something fairer and more intelligible?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that every local authority that makes representations about its SSA thinks that the system is unfair to it, and that whatever proposals it has are justifiable on entirely objective criteria. We have to find a system that we can keep up to date and that distributes resources effectively; we then need efficient local government.

Mr. Olner: The Minister knows that Warwickshire is a very efficient authority, as the district auditor has said. The Minister also knows that over the past three years Warwickshire has had to go over cap to provide its services. Will he assure us that when the authority sets its budget this year, and has to go over cap again because the Department has not taken into account the education disregard, the Government will allow it to do so?

Mr. Curry: When a local authority sets a budget over the cap, it can explain its reasons to the Government. We take them into consideration in determining whether to accept the higher budget or to require something lower. The same will happen again this year.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the consultation process to determine the 1998–99 standard spending assessment. [17015]

Sir Paul Beresford: We propose to invite representatives of local government to discuss possible changes in standard spending assessments for 1998–99 in the usual way.

Mr. Heppell: Will the Minister make it clear during that consultation that if Nottingham were funded on the same basis as Westminster, band D council tax payers would not pay £809 a year but would get a rebate of £661?

Sir Paul Beresford: That is a possible question, but one could also ask why Nottingham cannot be as efficient as Westminster and save its band D council tax payers £135.47.

Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a problem with SSAs in respect of tourism? Is he aware that there is a difficulty with standard bed nights, with visitor bed nights and with day visitors? When Torbay's local authority gains unitary status, will he at least reconsider the criteria on which day visitor numbers are counted so that they can be included with visitor bed nights?

Sir Paul Beresford: As ever, I shall consider all sensible suggestions. My hon. Friend's suggestion seems as if it may be one that we may examine carefully.

Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on inequities in the current funding formula for local government; and if he will make a statement. [17016]

Sir Paul Beresford: What one authority considers an inequity, another often considers entirely justified.

Mr. Simpson: I understand how difficult it must be to have Mayfair and Park lane and the poverty associated with those areas in one's borough, but is not the unfairness of today's formula the fact that the real benefits tourists in Britain are the rich in the Ritz? They are the ones whom the Government's tax subsidises, at a cost to almost every other local authority in Britain and every other council tax payer.

Sir Paul Beresford: What the hon. Gentleman forgets is that the factor that he criticises in respect of Westminster, if adjusted, would necessitate a similar adjustment for Chester, York, Cambridge and Durham. He should recognise that, contrary to what has been suggested by Labour Front Benchers, one cannot gerrymander the system.

Mr. Congdon: Rather than whingeing, would it not be better if local authorities got on and managed their services better? In that context, will my hon. Friend encourage local authorities to place more elderly people in the private sector and hence save nearly £750 million a year, instead of discriminating in favour of their own homes?

Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—like many of us, he has to live with Croydon council. Many Conservative councils have overcome the difficulty that he describes by using the private sector, being imaginative and using lateral thinking.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Soley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17031]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Soley: Does the Prime Minister agree that, if the negotiations in Northern Ireland result in a devolved assembly, Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland should continue to be able to speak and vote in this House on matters affecting England, Scotland and Wales? If he does agree with that, why would it not be a threat to the Union?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the powers that are likely to go to a Northern Ireland Assembly with those proposed for a Scottish Assembly. As he knows, they are not remotely comparable.

Mr. Soley: indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but they are not comparable. That is why his corollary is the wrong one.

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great successes of the past 18 years has been the strict control of immigration, which has much reduced racial tension in this country? Will he condemn the proposals, even by new Labour, to abolish the primary purpose rule and to grant immigration rights to the extended family? Does he agree that that will increase racial tension and create resentment even among sections of the Asian community?

The Prime Minister: In the past 18 years, we have seen the most extraordinary changes and improvements in race relations in this country. I think that is immensely important. I am certainly not going to lend my voice or my policy to anything that would damage that improvement.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister deserves credit for that answer.[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must come to order. Mr. Jamieson.

Mr. Blair: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the Prime Minister agree, following the past 48 hours, that it would be better for the Secretary of State for Health to concentrate on dealing with the crisis in the national health service, rather than adding to the crisis in the Conservative party?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend has done a great deal to improve services in the NHS, and he has also tackled many social service matters that required


examination and improvement. I think that he has been an outstanding Secretary of State for Health, and I believe that many people who are treated in the health service these days appreciate the improvements that have occurred.

Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister at least accept the evidence contained in a report due to be published on Thursday? A survey of 300 accident and emergency departments across the country shows that many are in acute and chronic crisis and that many simply cannot make do. The survey says that the problem has been made worse by the Conservatives' internal market reforms.
If the Prime Minister is to stumble on in office until 1 May, would it not be better for Ministers to use that time not playing games about who the next Tory leader will be but showing real leadership and tackling the problems facing the country?

The Prime Minister: Over the past five years, as we have tackled the problems facing the country, we have had nothing but opposition from the Labour party. Whatever fresh proposition was put forward—whether for health, education or controlling public spending—we could be certain that the Labour party would oppose it, and it did.
The fact is that we are creating a modern health service fit for the 21st century. Instead of carping about the health service, it would make a change if the Opposition offered some constructive proposals because, as yet, we have seen none. They say that they oppose bureaucracy, but they opposed us when we abolished the entire regional health tier. They say that hospitals are underfunded, but they will not match our pledge to increase funds. They say that they would increase efficiency, but they would abolish our reforms and set up a new tier of bureaucracy. The very last thing that the national health service needs is an ideological Labour Government causing chaos and disruption.

Mr. Blair: The very problem that the health service has had is an ideological Tory Government causing difficulties. That is why we have 20,000 more managers and 50,000 fewer nurses. If the Prime Minister believes his case on the health service, education and other issues, let him have the courage of his convictions and put the matter to the country now.

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly be taking our case on the health service and other matters to the country. I look forward to discussing the reality of what has been done in the health service.
It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that he seeks to improve the health service. The Opposition opposed national health service trusts, which are delivering better hospitals; they opposed fundholders, which are transforming primary care; and they attacked managers despite the fact that, before the reforms, no one could tell anyone where the money was going in the national health service.
The Opposition also attacked compulsory competitive tendering, despite the fact that it is saving millions of pounds that can go to patient care; and they are committed to a minimum wage, without saying how much it would cost the health service and whether they would fund it.

The Opposition will not match our pledge to increase funds in real terms for the health service in each successive year of the next Conservative Government.

Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that accidents involving NHS employees are costing £154 million a year, according to evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee only a few days ago? Will he therefore ask the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that the guidance given by the national health service executive to hospitals is put into practice? That would lead to great savings from fewer accidents; that money could be redeployed to acquire more nurses, more doctors and more services.

The Prime Minister: We are certainly keen to ensure that the money goes to patient services. That is happening increasingly now that we know how the money is being spent in the health service—before our reforms, we did not have that information. Of course I shall ask my right hon. Friend to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Ashdown: When last week the Prime Minister instructed members of the Conservative party to start the fight back immediately, did he expect them to take him quite so literally? Lord Tebbit attacks the Deputy Prime Minister, Lord McAlpine seeks to duff up the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary seems to want to take on the whole Cabinet. In deciding how to deal with these delinquents, has the Prime Minister ever considered making use of secure accommodation and electronic tagging?

The Prime Minister: If that is an indication from the right hon. Gentleman that he does support measures such as electronic tagging, I am pleased that in some areas he is moving towards the Government's policy.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the proposition propounded by the post-war Labour Government that constitutional measures should always be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. That has been the constitutional position in this House. It is the way in which matters have normally been handled. I cannot conceive that anyone would wish to change that long-established tradition.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17032]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Is Lord McAlpine correct to say that the Prime Minister asked him to collect a very large sum of money and that the person concerned turned out to be a Greek shipping tycoon, a very dubious character who had supported the Greek military dictatorship? Do the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General feel any responsibility for the fact that stolen money—and it is stolen money—from Asil Nadir is being used by the Conservative party for its election campaign? Should not all those matters be referred to the Nolan committee?

The Prime Minister: The Labour party has just been canvassing for resources in the United States, presumably from overseas donors. It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman, of all Members of the House, propounding the idea that it is acceptable to take money from Americans but not from people of other nationalities, were it to be offered. If he is concerned about funding, he should concern himself with the funding of his leader's office and his deputy leader's office, and with the trade unions buying votes in the Labour party.

Mr. Luff: Is it not all really rather simple, when properly understood? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this country has the most successful economy of any major country in Europe? Are not the Government determined to protect the interests of the United Kingdom in Europe and to protect the unity of the United Kingdom and its interests and influence throughout the world, and would not all that be put at risk by the Labour party's policies?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about that. The most important element of the economy's success is the fact that success and growth yield the resources to fund the services, such as education and health, that we wish to improve but which could not be improved without an improving economy.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17033]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Jackson: Following the very decisive statement by the voters of Wirral last week, will the Prime Minister

take the opportunity today to redeem his long-established reputation for indecisiveness and tell us whether the election will be on 1 May?

The Prime Minister: I warmly congratulate the new hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on his success, but I would advise him not to unpack his bags.

Mr. Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rate of unemployment in every constituency in Wales is lower than that in Germany and France? Does he agree that if the United Kingdom were to copy the European social model, as the Dollies opposite would have us do, unemployment in Wales would double?

The Prime Minister: The levels of unemployment have fallen dramatically across the United Kingdom over recent years, as a result of the policies that we have followed. For example, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), they have fallen by 25 per cent., and by 36 per cent. in the constituency of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Unemployment has fallen by 31 per cent. in Sheffield, and by 40 per cent. in Sedgefield. On the back of that, one would expect the Opposition to agree that the policies that we have been following create jobs, whereas the policies that they are following have created unemployment across Europe.

Mr. Insley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 March. [17034]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the attack by Lord Tebbit on his Deputy Prime Minister, whom he described as
tasteless, tacky if not dishonourable, and self-centred"?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister replied for himself quite adequately on that matter.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
James Keith Chapman Esq., for Wirral, South

United Kingdom Membership of European Union (Research)

Mr. Hartley Booth: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to carry out research into alternatives to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.
The future of our people in Europe will be determined by the age-old principle: united we stand, divided we fall.
The British are ambivalent about Europe. Nothing that has yet been proposed will resolve their feelings. Indeed, the referendum that has been proposed will tell us only that we are divided, which we already know. We need solutions to the dilemma. Most of all, we need real changes in Europe that can harness the support of all the people in our country. We owe it to those whose livelihoods depend on Europe to ensure that we achieve the changes in Europe that would bring more of the country alongside them.
How do we scale the mountain necessary to persuade our friends in Europe that we need change, and that their venture, European unity, is likely to crumble to dust unless they address and resolve some of our difficulties with European development?
The only way to move mountains is with power, and the only power that we have among the 15 members of the European Union is ultimately the strength of our arguments.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Valedictory speech.

Mr. Booth: It may be a valedictory speech, but it is an important one.
The first step is to find the national argument that can win all the support of Britain—and the unity of the nation is vital. Those two aspects must go together, and my Bill is one part of the argument: a piece in the jigsaw to win. I seek to support our leaders when they argue our case for change in Europe. Officials in the Foreign Office agree that, if we are to negotiate changes to answer legitimate complaints, we need to strengthen our negotiating arm. This is no time to groan; it is time to be constructive on Europe.
Our problem is not Europe itself. Our problem is that we were not there in 1957, as part of the foundation of the venture, and it has been made worse by the fact that policies have been made and directions taken since then that have made the problems chronic and the solutions therefore more difficult to find. I do not share the view that there is no solution, however; I believe that we must find a solution.
The problem is not about sceptics. In a sense, there is no such thing as a sceptic: there are only people who complain, and yet find no answer. My modest Bill is my contribution to what I believe to be one of the most important debates that the House has had in 700 years. I seek to strengthen the hand of our leaders in two ways—first by giving them a strong card to play, and secondly by increasing unity behind the Prime Minister in his quest to promote a partnership among free nation states. Negotiation, even between friends—even in a family of nations—can be tough. I make no apology if

my proposals sound tough; if on occasion it is necessary to be cruel to be kind, it is sometimes also necessary to be tough to achieve harmony.
My Bill proposes that the Government should research viable alternatives to our membership of the European Union. Others may be suggested, but I happen to believe that there is only one that would be in keeping with the worldwide horizon of the British people—the development of global free trade through the World Trade Organisation. That would make regional trade arrangements, such as the European model, a stepping stone to world prosperity, and greater prosperity beyond that. When I went to Geneva to research the matter earlier this year, I was satisfied that the WTO would, in the end, have the strength to give Britain a viable alternative to the EU.
How can that help us? Why does a viable ability to leave the EU without damaging our economic interests strengthen our negotiating power? There are two reasons. First, I do not believe that there is a Member of Parliament who has not been faced with the argument that the train has left the station, and that we have no choice but to stay or else become Norway mark 2. I believe that the one chance of a new start in Europe is to demonstrate that our whole regional exercise in Europe could, in the next decade or so, be shunted into the sidings by global free trade and global arrangements. Making their arrangements more effective could be seen by those in Europe as vital to avoiding relegation to the second league.
Secondly, we sell ourselves short all the time. Our partners in Europe have strong reasons to keep us in their sphere of influence. We are their export market: in every case, we are just about their principal export market. Two years ago, Germany exported £6 billion more to us than we exported to it. It needs us in Europe, and we should use that card. Rather than promoting our departure, it is likely that my proposal will cement the ties that we have in Europe, through a stronger negotiating position and the ability to reflect the changes required by our people. If Europe can deflect itself from various policies that we find irksome, everyone will win.
There is no time in this short speech for me to list the changes that are needed, but the European Court, the common agricultural policy and fisheries policy would be on my personal shopping list. I stress, however, that I am not presenting the Bill to promote our departure from the EU. On the contrary, I am presenting it to say that those who often appear deaf to the British point of view should listen to our plans. I am presenting it to be constructive and positive. We must show our friends—yes, friends—in Europe that some change will assist them too, because it will buttress a common venture. I believe that the tide of freely expressed anxiety—the tide demanding change—will sweep away even the finest ambitions unless Britain is in Europe, to play our part and to contribute our version of common sense. Rhetoric helps no one, but successful negotiation among friends certainly does.
I commend my Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hartley Booth, Mr. Bob Dunn, Sir Ralph Howell, Sir Sydney Chapman, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Nicholas Budgen, Mr. William Cash, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. David Amess and Mr. David Lidington.

UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERSHIP OF EUROPEAN UNION (RESEARCH)

Mr. Hartley Booth accordingly presented a Bill to require Her Majesty's Government to carry out research into alternatives to the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 128].

Local Government Finance (Scotland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997. which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Madam Speaker: I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1997–98 (HC 272), which was laid before this House on 13th February. be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Grant in aid of building works at Dunblane Primary School and Grant in aid of Local Authority revenue costs resulting from the Dunblane tragedy (HC 273), which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Mr. Kynoch: This afternoon, the House has its annual opportunity to debate the Government's financial settlement for Scottish local authorities. It is an important day—a day when I would have expected the Opposition Benches to be filled. I note, however, that they are singularly empty at present. I trust that greater interest will be shown as time goes on.
I realise the quandary that the Opposition are in this afternoon, because a poll in The Herald this morning shows a 6 per cent. drop in support in Scotland for the Labour party; and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has at last realised that cutting administration and bureaucracy is an area that should be considered. He proposes to do that in the health service, but what has he done in the months and years past, in local government? Absolutely nothing. Yet his party controls local government in Scotland. The Labour party has said that there is no more money for local government, and Labour Members are here to debate that issue with us. We have said that there is plenty of funding for local government.
The purpose of the debate is to approve a package of legislation that deals with Scottish local authority funding. I propose therefore to begin by briefly introducing each element of the package.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I seek a straightforward explanation. Why is the Minister withdrawing £350 million from Scottish local authorities, and threatening some 17,000 jobs, which will increase council taxes and council rents? As Scotland will subsidise the United Kingdom by some £12.5 billion over the next five years, why is he doing that?

Mr. Kynoch: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would come up with something better than the old story of surpluses. Unfortunately, he is unable to understand the budget deficit between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1997 is accompanied by a report that sets out in detail the way in which the figures have been arrived at. It has been


subject to extensive consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I shall be happy to expand on any points of detail that hon. Members wish to raise.
The next order before us is the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, which is also accompanied by an explanatory report. The figures have again been calculated on a basis agreed with COSLA. Overall, the order provides for the payment to local government of a net sum of £2.73 million.
The Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1997–98 is the second such report. The proposed grant payments for 1997–98 ensure that the 10 councils will be protected for 50 per cent. of their mismatch. The report provides for the payment of special grant totalling £14.19 million next year, £6.97 million of which will go to Glasgow city council.
Lastly, hon. Members will see that we are also seeking their approval for the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on grant in aid of building works at Dunblane primary school and grant in aid of local authority revenue costs resulting from the Dunblane tragedy. We estimate that the first of those grants will amount to £2.091 million, and the second to £2.073 million. The report sets out how we have determined the amounts of grant that will be paid and their purpose. It is the product of close liaison with the council since the horrific events of last March. The report requires the formal approval of the House, which I hope it will obtain in a way that spares the community undue further attention.
So much for the detail of our proposals. I expect that, as in previous years, the overall local government finance settlement rather than the specifics of the orders and reports is likely to dominate the debate. We shall doubtless hear the usual, totally predictable complaints. Opposition Members, COSLA and virtually every local authority constantly complain that Scottish local government is underfunded, and that next year's settlement will require councils to cut expenditure.
It bears repeating as often as those claims are made that nothing could be further from the truth. Contrary to all the talk of cuts next year, next year's settlement allows every single council in Scotland to increase expenditure compared with the current year. It also bears repeating until the message has hit home that the overall settlement provides for an increase of more than £140 million, or 2.2 per cent., in local government expenditure. That is before any account is taken of the scope for efficiency savings.
At the same time, the level of Government support for that expenditure has been increased by more than £60 million, which is £46 million more than local government expected to receive, when it considered its planned expenditure for next year as outlined last year.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister has given local authorities, such as Glasgow city council, new burdens of additional expenditure for the police and for community care.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman came to see me last Friday, with representatives of Glasgow city council. It was an interesting meeting, because Glasgow city council receives £21 million of mismatch funding, partly through

the self-finance mismatch funding scheme and partly from the almost £7 million that it receives in supplementary top-up, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced last year. Glasgow said that in this year's expenditure, it would be able to pay off a deficit of£9 million. That means that Glasgow city council has£10 million extra expenditure that it can incur while staying within its capping limit, plus £9 million that it seems to have accumulated, so that it can pay off a deficit this year. Therefore, the council has the possibility to increase its budget by some £19 million. Of course, that does not stop the council, because it says that it still has to make further cuts of some £80 million. That shows that it is looking to increase its budget by some £99 million. At a time when inflation is running at between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent., that budget increase would be in excess of 10 per cent. That is unreasonable.
Glasgow has had a fair deal. When Councillor Gould came to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last year and pleaded for some extra help to buy time to get his expenditure into line with revenue, Councillor Gould knew perfectly well what was going to happen to the funding of Glasgow city council this year. I give him credit for the fact that he seems to have been able to pay off a deficit this year. It appears that he seems, if what he says is right, to have managed to get his expenditure into line with budget, so I fail to understand why he is seeking to increase his budget now by more than 10 per cent.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The Minister will recall the detailed discussion that Glasgow Members and city council representatives had with him on Friday. I am sure that, if he recalls that discussion, he will remember that, although there was a £9 million surplus this year, that still leaves the council with an £80 million deficit and having to sack up to 2,000 workers and cut services accordingly. Does he still think that Glasgow is trying to spend more money? It is struggling to avoid spending far less and wrecking services.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Lady has not been listening to what I have said about Glasgow city council. My point is this. It appears that next year it is seeking to spend almost £100 million more than this year, but when I mentioned at the meeting some of the information that I had received as a result of asking Councillor Gould about his councillors' travel arrangements in the past year, I noticed that certain hon. Members rose very quickly to their feet.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Rose.

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend mentions the word "rose". That could lead me to give some of the details. Hon. Members heard me say that, when I looked through the analysis of councillors' visits to conferences and trips abroad, I found that two councillors went to Rostov-on-Don for the Rostov city days event—what that has to do with Glasgow I fail to understand—

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: In a minute. I did not mention the hon. Gentleman, but I was referring to him, and I shall give way in just a minute, because he may be able to justify those trips, at a time when Glasgow city council is


advocating significant cuts—his words, not mine—in service delivery. There were two trips to the Rostov city days event, one to St. Petersburg for a symposium on cultural policy in Europe and another to an international rose exhibition in Rome. Lastly, I fail to understand why a councillor from Glasgow city council went all the way to Hong Kong for a meeting of the International Badminton Federation, when the council is talking about cutting services.

Mr. Martin: The Minister was referring to me and to the comments that I made. He should have been fair, because I invited him to have a debate on the Floor of the House about trips abroad, so that we could talk about some of the trips that Conservative Members go on, which are so strange that the Privileges Committee has had to examine them. I speak as a Member who has not been abroad in this Parliament. I say to the Minister: hold a debate, when we can talk about everyone's trips abroad. It is a scandal that the Privileges Committee has had to examine hon. Members who have brought shame on the House.

Mr. Kynoch: I understand the hon. Gentleman trying to divert the debate from what I was talking about, which is what is going on in Glasgow city council, but it might interest him to know that I have made two trips abroad in the past 18 months. From one, I brought back 4,300 jobs after inward investment by Chunghwa Picture Tubes and. from the other, 500 jobs were created at the Lexmark company in Rosyth. I believe in spending money wisely, in the interests of my responsibilities. I find it difficult to understand the expenditure to which I referred, at a time when Glasgow city council is asking its electorate for a 22 per cent. increase in council tax and talking about cutting services.
If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) does not like to hear about foreign trips, I refer him to the fact that Glasgow city council proposes to spend £500,000 celebrating the centenary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. How does it plan to do it? It proposes to be environmentally friendly and pour red dye into the Clyde. What on earth that will do for the good citizens of Glasgow, I fail to understand. In addition, it has spent £810,000 on 28 cars for the council and about £500,000 on legal costs, trying to bust the conditions attached to the Burrell bequest. That is quite inexplicable from a council that is seeking to cut services to its council tax payers, but it is only to be expected from the prospective candidates for the tax-raising Parliament that Labour and the Liberal Democrats wish to set up after the election, if, God forbid, they ever come to power.

Mr. John McAllion: As the Minister is comparing trips abroad with cuts in public spending at home, how does he justify the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland going to Atlanta to watch the Olympic games, after imposing one of the worst ever housing settlements on Scotland and making more vicious cuts in housing expenditure? What connection is there between the Olympic games and housing in Scotland?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman failed to remind the House that my hon. Friend is also the Minister responsible for sport in Scotland, and one of his functions is to ensure good and successful sporting activity. The meetings that

he held in Atlanta contributed to his current thinking about the future of sport in Scotland. I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman, who I thought was a football fanatic, would appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend was taking a healthy interest in his subject.
What badminton in Hong Kong or a rose exhibition in Rome had to do with Glasgow city council, however, I fail to understand.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that had the Minister responsible for sport in Scotland not gone to Atlanta to support Scottish competitors in the Olympic games, all hell would have broken loose among the Opposition? We like our Ministers to represent Scotland at major sporting events, as I did at the Commonwealth games.

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he is a former Sports Minister and was once a successful rugby player, he knows only too well the need for the best possible information about sport.
I do not wish to be diverted too far on the issue of sport. Let me return to Glasgow city council.

Mr. Tony Worthington: rose—

Mr. Kynoch: If it is on Glasgow city council, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Worthington: I really must appeal to the Minister to treat the matter with great seriousness. We have lost hundreds of jobs throughout Scotland, services have been cut and there have been massive increases in council tax. If we have a successful economy in Scotland, why can we not afford the same services this year as last year?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman talks about treating the matter seriously. I consider it to be exceedingly serious, and that is why I have had meetings with councils and with right hon. and hon. Members. 1 am disappointed by the fact that it was apparent at those meetings that hon. Members had not understood the councils' intentions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should know that if we did not have capping, as is Labour policy, Glasgow city council would not be asking for a 22 per cent. increase in council tax. The council would go to council tax payers and ask for a 62 per cent. increase. That is a disgraceful way in which to run a council—it is attempting to increase expenditure by more than 11 per cent.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does the Minister really understand local government finance? It is obvious that he does not understand the city of Glasgow, which has been eroded and become riddled by years of Conservative government, crime, drugs and homelessness. Medical reports such as the Black report show that the infant mortality rate in Glasgow is the worst in Europe. That is the Government's record. The Minister does not understand finance. In his letter to the provost, he wrote about "aggregate finance", "specific needs" and "needs and resources elements". He aggregated those elements, and it cost Glasgow millions of pounds.

Mr. Kynoch: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes that view, because he showed a singular lack of


knowledge of local government finance when leading the delegation that met me last Friday. The facts of life are that Glasgow city council may well have the problems that he mentioned. However, he fails to recognise the fact—although it is staring him in the face—that the Labour party has been in control of Glasgow city council and has created those conditions, because it cannot prioritise spending in the best interests of council tax payers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: Conservative Members are responsible, and they attempt to ensure that taxpayers' hard-earned funds are spent wisely, to achieve cost-effective service delivery within local government.

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: I give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Madam Speaker: Order. Too many hon. Members are attempting to intervene at the same time. Only one hon. Member should be on his feet at a time, and that is the Minister, unless he gives way.

Mr. Dalyell: If I have heard the Minister wrongly, forgive me. I thought that, in his outburst, he referred to busting the conditions of the Burrell bequest. Would this be an appropriate moment to ask what the Government's policy is on the very difficult matter of the Burrell bequest? Are the Government really in favour of "busting" its conditions?

Mr. Kynoch: As I understood the position—although I shall attempt to clarify it—the conditions attached to the Burrell bequest are a responsibility of the trustees, not of the Government. However, I am concerned that Glasgow city council is attempting to break the conditions of the Burrell bequest and, in doing so, incurring expenditure of up to £500,000 of council tax payers' funds. If that is the case, I question whether that is funding well spent, at a time when Glasgow is—

Dr. Godmans: rose—

Mr. John Maxton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: I should like to move on, but I am happy to see such healthy interest on the Opposition Benches. I shall give way.

Mr. Maxton: I wonder where the Minister gets the figure of £500,000, whereas the council says that, at the maximum, it is £90,000? That is the sum. Why is the Minister trying to tell us that it is £500,000 when it is not?

Mr. Kynoch: I very carefully said "up to £500,000", and I hope that the figure—if anything—would be

significantly less. The councillors who came to see me with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) clearly should be attempting to spend council tax payers' funds and central taxation in a wise manner, so that their council tax payers have good delivery of service. At that meeting, however, when we analysed the request, they made it clear that what they effectively wanted was £50 million more, to be given to Glasgow city council. They already have £21 million more, through the two mismatch schemes.
Would hon. Members representing areas covered by the other new local authorities in the former Strathclyde region—East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire—be happy for an extra £50 million to be taken from their funding, to go to Glasgow? That is what the Glasgow councillors were arguing to me. They said that the distribution of funds did not favour Glasgow adequately and that more money should come from those areas outside Glasgow.

Dr. Godman: Clause 4 of the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill places additional responsibilities on fire authorities to deal with emergencies at sea. What discussions have there been between the Scottish Office and the Department of Transport about that additional burden to be placed on our fire authorities? Was there any discussion about the funding of training of firemen for the extra duties and the provision of extra equipment?

Mr. Kynoch: The grant-aided expenditure on fire has been increased considerably. There are always discussions with the authorities to ensure adequate funding.
I allowed myself to be slightly diverted by the detail of Glasgow. I wanted to conclude by saying that local government has been treated favourably in last year's public expenditure survey.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I was waiting for the Minister to move on from talking about Glasgow. How does he account for the fact that Argyll and Bute council is facing £8.5 million of cuts as it tries to meet the commitments inherited from Strathclyde regional council? Some £3.5 million of those cuts are in education. We are facing the closure of three more schools, two of which are on an island. Why can the Minister not help Argyll and Bute?

Mr. Kynoch: I am able to do something for Argyll and Bute. The hon. Lady will be aware that there has been disagreement among the local authorities about the disaggregation of the former Strathclyde budget. The Scottish Office has always said that it was for the local authorities to decide about that distribution. After a lot of effort in trying to persuade West Dunbartonshire council to accept an independent arbiter—a point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) when he came with a council delegation to see me—I am delighted to say that the arbiter has worked incredibly quickly and has come up with a figure, which I believe has been agreed with Argyll and Bute and West Dunbartonshire. Argyll and Bute should be able to spend more than £500,000 extra this year within its capping limit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce that officially to the council later this afternoon.
At the recent meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose, my right hon. Friend challenged any Opposition Member who thought the settlement inadequate to say which Scottish Office programmes they would cut to give more to local government. Predictably, Labour Members ran a mile to avoid answering. They could not answer, because the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has decreed that there will be no increase in public expenditure, and therefore no extra expenditure in Scotland on local government.
I understand that the hon. Member for Hamilton, who will be opening for the Opposition, is now considering how to redistribute funding. I should delighted if he is really talking about getting his Labour councils to start looking at making themselves more cost-effective, and spreading local authority expenditure away from the centre, the bureaucracy and administration, and out to the front-line delivery of service, because that is what we believe in. We believe in cost-effective delivery of service.
Perhaps the Labour party finds it easier to act simply as a postbox for the misleading claims that local authorities are being compelled to cut services—without examining what is really going on. Labour Members have doubtless been briefed by councils and COSLA on the scale of cuts—as they call them—that they claim will have to be made. I should, however, be pleasantly surprised to find that Labour Members had examined such claims at all carefully. I have examined the claims very carefully indeed. As I said, I have also had the opportunity to discuss the claims face to face with a number of council representatives, including those from Glasgow and Argyll and Bute, which revealed an absolutely fascinating fact.
Councils are claiming that they need to increase their spending by about £500 million this year, just to stand still. That is half a billion pounds on top of any efficiency savings that they can make, or an increase of 8 per cent. on current spending, at a time when inflation is only about a third of that. If capping were not in place, that £500 million would mean an increase in the council tax in Scotland of no less than 42 per cent.—by mostly Labour-controlled councils. Yet the Labour party believes that if it ever came to office, it would not put up taxes. The Labour party is the party of spend and tax, as we are seeing in local government in Scotland. Its assertion is an extraordinary one, which I cannot believe any sensible person would take at face value.

Mrs. Fyfe: As the Minister's words a moment ago showed that he disbelieved the claims made by councils, is he telling us that he is predicting that there will be no redundancies in Glasgow in the provision of essential services?

Mr. Kynoch: Glasgow city council must face up to facts; that is the long and the short of it. The hon. Lady does not of course understand. I assume that exactly the same distribution of central funding, through a formula agreed jointly in the distribution committee between COSLA and the Scottish Office, would be in operation should the Labour party ever come to power.
I have sought to find out whether COSLA wants to change the method of distribution. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the president of COSLA, asking whether he agrees with the desire of the

hon. Member for Hamilton to have an independent look at the distribution of funds from the centre. The hon. Gentleman is in total opposition to COSLA, because COSLA' s president said that he was more than happy with the distribution committee.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went a stage further and suggested that perhaps it was time to take the responsibility for the distribution of funds away from the distribution committee; perhaps a totally independent body should consider distribution, so that people in Glasgow and hon. Members who represent Glasgow could feel that the process was independent. Yet COSLA, which is largely made up of the Labour party in Scotland, says that it is happy with the distribution. There is the most incredible split in the Scottish Labour party, which is only too apparent in local government finance.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that, last year, Glasgow council made cuts of £68 million and increased the council tax by 25 per cent.? Does he further agree that, this year, in order to meet the Minister's capping level, it will have to increase its council tax by another 25 per cent., sack 2,000 employees and cut some services by 10 per cent. and some smaller services by 15 per cent. and 20 per cent?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten what happened last year, when Councillor Gould struck a deal with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The deal was that my right hon. Friend would guarantee to give extra funding to Glasgow and other so-called mismatch losers if they agreed to bring expenditure into line with revenue. It is up to the councils how they organise their funds. Last year, Glasgow's budget was some £843 million, and the council could prioritise its spending within that budget, to ensure good service delivery.
Last year, the councillors talked about cuts, but again they increased expenditure over the year before. The hon. Member for Provan fails to recognise, from what the councillors told me on Friday, that they are able to increase expenditure on service delivery by some £19 million this year. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but officials were concerned by the questions that I asked at the meeting. The councillors told me that they would not be in deficit at the end of the year. Indeed, they said that they would be in surplus, so that they could pay off £9 million of budget deficit inherited from the former Strathclyde council. That means that they spent some £9 million less on service delivery than they expected, so they probably have a flexibility of £9 million within their capping limit, which can be added to the £10 million increase, giving some £19 million. The long and the short of it is that Glasgow has had a good settlement. Glasgow must recognise that for years, under a Labour administration, it has prioritised its expenditure out of line with the people's needs and has not ensured good service delivery. It is time that Labour Members recognised that.
I have yet to have a satisfactory explanation from councils or from the Labour party, of why councils should need the enormous increase that they want. By the councils' admission, the increase would not be used to enhance or improve the services that they provide—it would be used to stay where they are. That is hardly an attractive sales pitch. I can conclude only that they have a spending wish list and that talk of cuts is simply deplorable scaremongering.
I have heard tales of councils varying their claims of expected council tax increases. Edinburgh made the most ridiculous claims not many weeks ago, but it is now talking of a council tax increase of some 3 per cent. The stories are scaremongering and nothing more. Certain councils have created unnecessary alarm among the more vulnerable members of the population, and that is sad. I condemn that, because it does no service to the cause of local government.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Does the Minister remember that I brought a delegation of Midlothian councillors to meet him? He disagreed with our claims about the way in which the money was redistributed by COSLA, but the reduction of £3 million in grant aid to Midlothian is a fact and is equivalent to a 16 per cent. increase in council tax. Nobody challenged our figures at the meeting—merely the way in which they were calculated.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman brought a delegation to see me, and I welcomed our discussion. I pointed out to the Midlothian councillors that they were permitted to increase their expenditure, within the capping limit, by some 3.17 per cent. this year. That takes into account the public expenditure policy on pay and salaries—that awards should be funded from efficiency improvements—so councillors have 3.17 per cent. more to spend on services, and there is absolutely no reason for cuts. The hon. Gentleman is a Whip, so perhaps he should ask his colleagues on the Front Bench what funding they would give local government if ever they came to power.
Throughout all the discussions of the past weeks, Opposition Members have complained about cuts and insufficient funding for local government, as they have done year on year on year, yet this year there has been a strange silence from the Opposition Front Bench. That silence was leaked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) when he said to people at a party meeting in Dundee that they might not believe it, but Labour was going into the next general election campaign advocating no increase in expenditure.
That may be a major problem for the Labour party, but I cannot help that. We have given increased funding to local government, which occupies about 37 per cent. of the Scottish Office bloc. Once again, I challenge the hon. Member for Hamilton to say what he would give to local government, and where he would take it from, if he were on Government Benches.
Local government benefits from reasoned, realistic, informed debate. I hope that we shall have that this afternoon; from the interventions that I have taken so far, I find that difficult to believe, but I live in hope. To shed more light on the matter, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I commissioned the local authority current expenditure study, which was published last month. Copies of the report were sent to all Scottish Members. Hon. Members have now had time to study what my right hon. Friend rightly described as a major and important piece of work.
The study was carried out entirely independently of Government, by Coopers and Lybrand and Pieda. After going to great lengths to ensure that it was comparing like

with like, the report concluded that spending levels across a wide range of services were higher—in some cases, very much so—than in England or Wales.
The report completely destroys the myth that Scottish local government is underfunded. One of its many interesting points is that the much higher spending levels have been consistent over the past 10 years, despite all the claims by Opposition Members that the Government have starved Scottish local government of resources.
Critically, the consultants question the extent to which issues that are often cited as "explaining" the much higher levels of expenditure in Scotland, such as sparsity, deprivation and unemployment, are genuinely significant. Opposition Members may want to think seriously about that before launching into this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the Government are committed to a second-stage study, the main objective of which would be to get behind the figures that have been published and explore further the reasons for higher spending by Scottish councils, and to consider the relative efficiency of councils and the quality of service that they deliver.

Mr. George Robertson: This is ridiculous.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman says that it is ridiculous, but it shows the wide gulf—

Mr. Robertson: The Minister has been speaking for 42 minutes.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman says that I have been speaking for 42 minutes, but I have been taking interventions from Opposition Members. He would slag me off if I did not take interventions from hon. Members who want to ask about their councils

Mr. Robertson: It is only a three-hour debate.

Mr. Kynoch: It is a three-and-a-half-hour debate. The hon. Gentleman is trying to divert attention from what I am trying to say.
We challenge the Labour party to say whether, in the unlikely event that it were to form the next Government, it would also proceed with the second-stage study. It seems reluctant to do so. I ask again whether the hon. Member for Hamilton would do it. Perhaps Opposition Members would prefer not to lift the lid on local government spending, for fear of what they might find. Council tax payers will doubtless draw that conclusion.
I repeat that reasoned, realistic, informed debate benefits local government. We have recent examples to prove it. The serious and thoughtful representations from a number of councils led us to review the capping limits set for 15 relatively low-spending councils, which argued that it was unfair that they should be permitted only the same year-on-year increase in capped expenditure as high-spending councils. The councils that argued for an increase in their capping limits accepted that the additional costs would have to fall on their council tax payers. That change in capping limits would push up council tax levels and local authority self-financed expenditure by £10 million.
As we tirelessly try to explain to Opposition Members, that increase in public expenditure can be afforded only by making offsetting reductions in other expenditure programmes. We have explained our intention to reduce the level of local authority capital consent that will be issued for next year, by some £10 million. That will come from a supplementary allocation later in the year.
A further reasoned and realistic proposal put to us concerns the so-called "spend to save" scheme. We accept that some authorities face difficulties in adjusting their existing spending patterns to what can be afforded, while protecting the front-line services to which we all attach priority. At the suggestion of COSLA, we have agreed to grant councils additional flexibility within the total resources available to them, to allow them, if they so wish, to use some of their capital provision to secure savings on their revenue budgets. No new resources are available for that purpose, but it will give councils more room to manoeuvre in setting budgets. Officials are discussing as a matter of urgency the practicalities of that with councils that are interested in the scheme.
These measures genuinely help local government—unlike the constant repetition of tired and implausible claims about cuts and underfunding. The measures recognise the reality of public expenditure—that more for one programme means less for another. Altogether, the settlement for next year is very favourable. I challenge the Labour party—which has ambitions to form the next Government—to say whether it would increase the settlement and, if so, where that additional money would be found. If, as I suspect, Labour Members remain silent on that, I must ask whether—in line with their past practice following such debates—they plan to divide the House on the orders. If so, why? Yet again we shall see the inconsistency in the logic of the Labour party in Scotland. For my part, I commend the two orders and the two reports to the House.

Madam Speaker: I call —[Interruption.] I call Mr. George Robertson.

Mr. George Robertson: The Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and I were stuck on the 10 o'clock Edinburgh shuttle for some three hours today. Clearly, we have been forgotten down here in the interim.
I start by welcoming the special grant report that has been tabled in relation to Dunblane primary school. I fully support this order and the moneys that have been made available. The order is a reflection of a tragedy that occurred almost a year ago, which united this House. There were unavoidable costs attached, and let us hope that those are never to be incurred again. We fully support and agree with the moneys provided to cover those costs.
I cannot say the same for the rest of the Government's plans for local government. One of the more disappointing aspects of this important debate—in which we are considering local government on the edge of a general election—is that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not open it. His predecessor had the guts to come to these debates most years, and did not put up some clone in his place. This is the key local government debate of the year, and the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper

Nithsdale (Mr. Lang)—the Secretary of State's predecessor—did not desert the battlefield when it came to defending the indefensible policy of the Government.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is perfectly capable of putting the case for local government. The difference between the situation when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was Secretary of State for Scotland and now is that, in his day, the Labour party was arguing for more money, and was not supporting the Government.

Mr. Robertson: I do not think that that is sufficient excuse. The right hon. Gentleman is not capable of defending the Government's indefensible position on local government. People outside the House will reach the right conclusion.
I will state our position on local government and local government expenditure, but it is for the Government, in their dying days, to tell us why they have allowed this situation to develop, and why they promote this settlement. The Minister, whom the Secretary of State seems to trust, has signally failed to do that. Despite taking 47 minutes of a three-and-a-half hour debate, he gave no explanation of why local authorities across Scotland have been put in such a position, or why council tax payers must pay the penalty.
The Secretary of State fiddles, like some tartan Nero, on the eve of a general election, while communities across Scotland suffer the consequences of his settlement. That is another example of the arrogant complacency that has been the hallmark of his period in office, which has meant that he has barely risen a fraction in the opinion polls, despite our momentary drop.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the disappointments of these debates is the way in which he talks down to Conservative Members and uses personal abuse? He should stick to the issues. Is it not a greater disappointment to him that the majority of Scottish Labour Members have not turned up? Perhaps they are all on foreign trips.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a pity that we resort to personal abuse; then personally abuses people who are not even here. That is the sort of consistency that we have enjoyed from him during his brief period in the House.
This is an important debate about what the Government propose this year for local government. As local government takes up almost half the Scottish Office budget, it is a subject of more than average relevance to the House and to Scotland.
Not one independent commentator on local government in Scotland agrees with what the Minister told the House. They all agree that council tax bills will go up way above inflation, that compulsory redundancies will be forced on councils, and that there will be real and painful reductions in services across Scotland: all because of the Government's grant settlement for this year. I doubt whether the Minister expects anyone in Scotland to believe his fiddled statistics.

Mr. Kynoch: I challenge the hon. Gentleman again to say how much more he would give if he were in government. How much, and from where?

Mr. Robertson: I will deal with that precisely later. No incoming Government could repair in their first


18 months the damage of the economic failure of 18 years of the Conservatives. I make no pretence about it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I have made it clear that we are not likely to find extra hidden caches of money left behind by the Government when they lose power. We have to accept the spending limits that have been laid down for the current year.

Mr. Bill Walke: rose—

Mr. Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait while I answer the Minister.
We will have to live with the totals, but we will have wholly different priorities. We will put extra money into education in Scotland by abolishing the nursery voucher scheme and providing places for all four-year-olds in Scotland. By abolishing the assisted places scheme and reducing class sizes for the first three years of primary education, we will put extra money into education in Scotland. Through other means, we will find more money for the education system of our country, because that is vital for our future competitiveness. It would be wildly irresponsible to do that when the statistics are not available.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government on the basis of figures that they provided from the Red Book and other sources. Government is about determining priorities. What are his priorities? Which budgets will he reduce to increase other budgets? He should remember that we have not all been in the House for a short time. Will he say just what he can do? I do not mean palliatives such as the little bits and pieces he mentioned. In real money terms, what changes will he make?

Mr. Robertson: No wonder the hon. Gentleman wants to know—the Conservative Government will not tell the people of Scotland anything about what they would do if they won the next general election. One would think that the election had already been won—that Labour were the Government and the Conservatives were the Opposition. The Conservatives no longer have any responsibility, any ideas or any clue about what they will offer the people of Scotland in future.
Where did the Secretary of State manage to find £500,000 for one opted-out school, which just happened to be in his constituency? He told us last year that they were strapped, that there was no extra money to help local government and no extra money for education or for the health service, yet halfway through the year £500,000 was spirited up.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: If the right hon. Gentleman will sit down and wait for a minute, I shall. One of his great problems is that he seems to be incapable of listening—he always wants to be telling. The Secretary of State might be better off, on the edge of an election, if he was capable of listening to the Scottish people instead of lecturing them. Now let him ask his question.

Mr. Forsyth: I was hoping to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman put to me. He asked where the money

for the opted-out schools came from. There is a Budget line for it—it is all published, and the hon. Gentleman can see our priorities. If he wishes to have other priorities, he should say where the money will come from, and stop pretending that the information is not available to him. When he says that he will abolish nursery vouchers, that is extra money for local government-an extra £30 million in year one. Where is the hon. Gentleman going to find that extra money he is promising? If he is not promising extra money, why is he opposing the settlement?

Mr. Robertson: We are opposing the orders tonight so that the Government can go back and look again at their priorities. The Secretary of State says that he found the £500,000 for the one opted-out school in his constituency from a specific Budget line—of course he did not do that. When, in the Scottish Grand Committee, he threw a document across, it was a generalised figure of £24 million for education in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman is able to do that, just as the Conservatives during their tenure in the Scottish Office wasted £1 billion on the poll tax. In the straitened circumstances in which they insisted they found themselves, the Government were able to waste—lose in a black hole£1 billion of taxpayers' money on a failed experiment in local taxation whose residue is felt even today.
The Government have managed to lose or waste billions of pounds on the privatisation of the railways; £30 million was wasted on Health Care International—

Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finishing reciting this catalogue of waste for which the Government are responsible, I shall be happy to listen to how his party will pay for everything on every account.
The Government lost £30 million on an investment in a private hospital at Clydebank.

Mr. Kynoch: Those are last year's figures.

Mr. Robertson: Last year's figures—last year's waste and last year's mistakes. Yes, but they were all found within a Scottish Office budget, and when we come to power, we will scrutinise that budget with great care to see where savings can be made and waste prevented. What about the £1 million that the Government are going to spend on advertising the voucher scheme that almost no one in Scotland actually wants? Where will the money come from to enable them to push that scheme down people's throats on the edge of the election?

Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allan Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Angus, but I stress to the House and to failed Tory Ministers that they were responsible for that waste—they were able to find that money. We will change the


priorities within the Scottish Office budget and within every other budget in the land, and people will notice right away where our priorities are.

Mr. Welsh: I want to ask a specific question. Would the hon. Gentleman wish to continue the policy of the self-financing public sector pay awards?

Mr. Robertson: We intend to finance pay awards next year out of the existing settlement—my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has made that absolutely clear. The Scottish National party believes that anything may be financed. I wonder what sort of settlement the hon. Gentleman would impose. Clearly, SNP councils have had to live with the existing budgets.
I return to the local government settlement, and to the deceit and the fiction of the Government's case. We are used to the broken promises and lies about taxation from this Government. The fact is that, even according to the Government's figures, permitted expenditure this year will rise by only £75 million, or 1.4 per cent—and that is before new burdens placed on local government by central Government and Parliament are taken into account. We have yet to deal with the deception regarding the cost and the savings of local government reorganisation, and the self-financing awards have yet to take place.
The Government's case is simply not true. As I said, no independent commentators in Scotland or elsewhere will support the Government's contention that more money is being made available in real terms to local government in Scotland. Councils must finance new burdens out of this year's settlement.

Mr. Alex Salmond: rose—

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman should sit down. We shared a cab today, but that is all that I am willing to share with him at present.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: You have to give way.

Mr. Robertson: We are back to the old "kissing cousins" relationship between the two extremities of Scottish politics. However, the people of Scotland will continue to choose the middle ground. Even in today's poor opinion poll, we are 20 per cent. ahead of the party of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), and 30 per cent. ahead of the Government. That says it all.
New burdens have been imposed on local government. It must finance the installation of seat belts in school transport. The landfill tax from last year's Budget has produced huge burdens for local authorities across Scotland. Increased burdens have arisen from care in the community and support for carers legislation passed in the House. Extra burdens have been imposed by the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Higher contributions are required from local authorities for police and fire employees. Those additional burdens have been imposed upon local government in the past year, and they will not be funded by the Government.

Mr. Kynoch: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I have given way to the Minister twice. He spoke for 47 minutes in a three-and-a-half-hour

debate. Many of my colleagues wish to speak also, so perhaps he should sit back and listen rather than talking all the time.

Mr. Kynoch: Chicken.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Hon. Members will recall that "Erskine May" asks us to conduct debate with moderation and good temper. The debate seems reasonably good-tempered at present: let us keep it that way, and possibly improve it.

Mr. Robertson: I hope that the Minister will take that rebuke on board.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a rebuke: it is a reminder that is addressed to all hon. Members.

Mr. Robertson: The fact that the Secretary of State did not come to the Dispatch Box today will be noted all over Scotland. The people of Scotland recognise the importance of the local government settlement this year.
On top of the burdens that have been heaped on local government but not financed by central Government, the Government have decided to impose their own priorities on local authorities. Despite the Secretary of State's fine words last year during the Dick Stewart memorial lecture about local government having more power, authority and autonomy, he decided to top-slice the budgets this year and impose his priorities on local government first. Some £103 million has been top-sliced for police, fire services and education.

Mr. Forsyth: Security in schools.

Mr. Robertson: I do not disagree with some of those priorities; I simply point to the contrast between the Secretary of State's claims that local government should have greater autonomy and his decision to top-slice the budgets in advance. He knows that that will mean cuts in other local government budgets. We should recognise that the Secretary of State's fine words about local government autonomy boil down to his making more choices off his own bat in areas where others previously had the right to take decisions, to make mistakes and to stand by them at the ballot box.
Another deceit at the heart of the local government settlement is the pretence that local government reorganisation has brought significant savings. Not one person in Scotland believes that daft claim. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy established a joint committee to examine the cost of reorganisation. They asked the Government whether they would care to be involved, but, significantly, the Government said that they would not co-operate with the study.
That independent study found that the Government have under-estimated the cost of local government reorganisation by some £200 million, resulting in a hole of £50 million in this year's local government settlement. Only a few years ago, the Government set out to gerrymander a wasteful, unnecessary, unresearched and under-prepared reorganisation of local government. It was inevitable that that botched reorganisation would cost


money, and they now expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for that gargantuan and enduring Tory folly. That £50 million hole as a result of local government reorganization—which the Government pretend is a saving—lies at the root of certain problems facing councils today.
The reorganisation has created particular problems for some councils. Councils such as City of Glasgow, East Dunbartonshire, Dundee, Argyll and Bute and Borders have been left to swing in the wind as Ministers fail to recognise the consequences of reorganisation. In some cases, those consequences have had brutal effects on services—and they will have an even worse effect on council tax payers.
Ministers stand back, as though they had nothing to do with the reorganisation or the disaggregation of staff and budgets, and allow those councils to swing in the wind. It is a total abdication of responsibility by Ministers, who pretend that they had nothing to do with creating the new local government set-up: it is almost as though a pure accident of fate created 29 mainland councils in Scotland. All the consequences are ignored, as the problems pile up—problems that were created simply by the way in which the reorganisation affected local government financing.
We stand for partnership in local government, not provocation. We will replace the destructive confrontational approach of the present Government with a constructive partnership with local government in the public interest. We shall not be easy on councils next year as we try to sort out the debris of the Government's economic stewardship. Eighteen years of damage inflicted on government, particularly local government, cannot be resolved in the first 18 months of a Labour Government, but there is the prospect of a better future for local government.
We will tackle the problem of council tax collection—a legacy of the poll tax—and we will give councils the extra powers they require in order to ensure that the money is collected. We shall ensure that value for money is the criterion, not simply cheapness of product; that is why the crude competitive tendering that the Government have stood for over the years will be swept away and a better, quality-based system put in its place.
We shall set up an independent review into the relationship between central Government and local government in Scotland—a partnership review, which will allow all these things to be examined, and if that means that we are considering the distribution formula or the way in which that formula is organised, I expect that COSLA will want to participate in considering how it can or could be improved.
These are ways in which we shall make progress in our relationship with local government if we are returned at the election in only a few weeks' time.
In the meantime, it is, I fear, an unfortunate fact that the present Secretary of State has a grudge against Scottish local government. He clearly wants revenge, as does the Conservative party, on a local government structure that the Conservatives gerrymandered for their own interests but which did not deliver a single Tory council to them two years ago. That is the only possible explanation for this year's punitive settlement, and for the

parade of fraudulent propaganda about extra money for local councils, which every member of the Scottish public knows not to be true.
I believe it was two weeks ago last Saturday that the Secretary of State for Scotland told BBC radio's "Newsround" programme that he wanted to give more power back to local councils, and that he had even prepared a devolution to local government Bill, of which nothing has been heard since. No one believes him on the Bill or on his intentions about devolving more power to local government. He has become the enemy of local democracy, whether at council or Scottish level.
However, the real tragedy, I fear, about this vengeful confrontation is that the victims of the Secretary of State's prejudice will not be the Tory Ministers who will bite the dust in the next few weeks, but the vulnerable people throughout Scotland who depend on local government services—on home helps, care assistants and those who work in local government—and the millions who will pay a hefty price in their council tax bills for the Government's dismal economic failure.
Those people who will suffer, those people in local government who will lose their jobs, and those people who depend on the services of local government, will certainly remember the Government—but they are unlikely ever to forgive them.

Sir Hector Monro: After 21 minutes of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), I must say that I preferred 42 minutes of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch).
We had 21 minutes of cliché, riddled with perorations that kept mounting and falling away, and then it was the usual story—when the hon. Member for Hamilton is asked questions, he is always going to answer them but never does. Whether the subject is local government or the tartan tax or anything else to do with government in Scotland, he sits on fences watching them crumble beneath him, and never answers. He never gives a clear answer; even in the effort that he made in the Sunday newspapers to clear up the tartan tax, he sat on the fence and dodged most of the issues, and he knows it.
The performance of the hon. Member for Hamilton this afternoon was most disappointing. I want an answer from him—if not from him, perhaps from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) later. The hon. Member for Hamilton sweeps his hands around and says, "We shall change the budget," but the only things that he was prepared to say he would change were vouchers and the assisted places scheme. Where will he get the other hundreds of millions that he says will sort out the problems of local government in Scotland?
The hon. Gentleman speaks about partnership and not confrontation. Is he looking forward to meeting the parents of the children who will lose vouchers or assisted places? Is that partnership? It is confrontation of the most evil kind. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Parents look after their children's education, and if they have the opportunity of an assisted place or a voucher for nursery education, they will grasp it with both hands, yet the hon. Member for Hamilton says that he will sweep it away, in dictatorial fashion. There will be no chance for parents who want their children to have a better education. He is a pathetic figure, sitting on that Front Bench.
I noted today, when I was sitting listening to 21 minutes of peroration that never reached an end, that it was almost exactly this month 45 years ago that I was elected to a local authority—in a four-cornered fight, in case the hon. Member for Hamilton thinks I got in under the counter.
In many ways, local government has not changed. Throughout my years as a county councillor, we were asking, "Why can't we have more money to improve our services?", but we knew that we had to produce the money by good housekeeping, good husbandry and keeping down expenditure. The challenge was not how to increase local taxation but how to reduce expenditure. That is the challenge for local authorities. They always ask, "How can we spend more?" when the challenge is, "How can we spend less if we are to look after the interests of our many constituents in the local authority?"
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing for the people of Dunblane; it is absolutely right, and I support that move entirely. It reminds me that the Government were so helpful at the time of the major disaster at Lockerbie, when we lost 270 people in one evening.
It is profoundly disappointing that, although COSLA was set up to try to bring the best out of local authorities, it seems only to use its Labour majority to hammer the Government, day in, day out. I should like COSLA to make a much more co-operative effort to find the right formula—the rural authorities are, obviously, highly critical of the formula agreed by COSLA—for the distribution of the block grant.
Labour councillors, independent councillors, Scottish National party and Liberal Democrat councillors and so on are not correct when they say that there are cuts everywhere, because it simply is not true. The statistics show that there are increases of £140 million—2.2 per cent.—and that cannot be converted into cuts, however one wants to jiggle the statistics, including this and excluding that, and then say, "It isn't fair." Ultimately it must be recognised that the Government have provided more money for local authorities, and that there is not a cut in their resources.
I shall mention the Labour party once more. It is not good enough—[Interruption.] Good Lord, the hon. Member for Hamilton has gone already. [Laughter.] Oh, he is back again. It is not good enough for the hon. Member for Hamilton to sit there, and stand there later, and not tell us how he intends to give more to local authorities, when his Front-Bench spokesman, the shadow Chancellor, says that there is no more for local authorities. That may be why his public opinion poll rating has plummeted today, and perhaps that is why he is so crotchety and unhappy sitting there on the Front Bench: because he knows that, once the poll begins to slide, it is very unlikely to stop.
I shall briefly mention what has been happening in Glasgow. I notice from the report given to us by the chief executive that there were 203 conference attendances by Glasgow councillors, costing in total more than £110,000. We all know that some councillors must attend some conferences. That is the way that government and local government work: I accept that, especially if one is in charge of a major city like Glasgow or Edinburgh, one must fly the flag for Scotland and for those cities. But there is a limit. Most of us would say that the Glasgow figure was in excess of what is required. Aggregate

external finance per head for Glasgow is £181—by far the highest figure on the mainland. Glasgow had a case to answer, and it has not communicated it very well so far.
I shall now discuss special responsibility allowances. Of course certain members of every council must have special responsibility allowances. However, when 739 of the 1,235 councillors get special responsibility allowances, one feels that it has gone over the top. Councillors should examine the matter carefully. Certainly, convenors, vice-convenors and chairmen of committees must have such allowances, but that does not mean that 50 or 60 per cent. of the council should have them.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for seeing representatives of my local authority, Dumfries and Galloway, and I was pleased that under the new arrangements, he was able to increase the capping limit by £784,000 to £159.2 million. That is a welcome increase to the council's resources, although it is recognised that there will be an increase in council tax.
I was pleased to note an increase of £3.2 million, or 2.2 per cent., in aggregate external finance. The AEF per head for that council is £140, which is the seventh highest figure out of the 29 mainland authorities.
I highlight the fact that Dumfries and Galloway council has had an increase in its resources and in its capping limit. Councillors should not go around crying wolf and complaining that they have had to make dramatic cuts because of the Government's limit on resources. The council has set its own budget £10 million above the figure that the Government consider appropriate expenditure. That budget is being cut, not the money that the Government have given the council for distribution. I hope that councillors will stop giving the impression that the Government have dramatically cut council resources.
Councillors must not mislead their council tax payers. Last year, I thought that, in the budget strategy statement that went out with council tax demands, the council had been a little economical with the truth about where the cuts had come from. The statement did not highlight the fact that it was the council's budget, not the Government's, that had been reduced.
I have received a stream of letters from my constituents, especially on education. Perhaps they did not realise that, in its block grant, the authority has great flexibility, and can decide spending priorities. I am worried that music education, school buildings and library services all seem to be suffering, although the Government have encouraged greater spending on education, just as they have ring-fenced spending on the fire service and the police. In the block grant, I hope that there will be provision to ensure that elderly folk are properly looked after, with regard to transport and retirement homes.
It is for councillors to set priorities within the block grant, which, I emphasise again, has been increased this year. They may have a point when they say that the COSLA formula may not be in favour of rural areas. That should be re-examined. I hope that there will be no redundancies. The majority of council staff can be retained within the present budget, although I know that the council is making every effort to reduce expenditure.
I put some blame on COSLA for the level of payment to officials. In my authority, with 150,000 inhabitants—150,000 voters would be easier, in terms of statistics—no fewer than 48 officials earned more than £40,000. I know that that has been adjusted, as was clearly necessary.
In view of the budget that has been set, an increase in council tax is inevitable. I shall be disappointed if it cannot be held at 11 to 12 per cent. That is far above inflation, but it is the best that can be hoped for. I hear rumours of a 15 to 20 per cent. increase, which would be unacceptable. I hope that the council will take the matter seriously, especially as the amount of uncollected tax stands at £8.1 million.
I put on record the impact that Labour might have on business rates, which are extremely important in rural areas such as mine. The Secretary of State has acted to assist business rates over recent years.
I am glad that we have been able to keep capital expenditure at a good level, so that contractors and other local business men will benefit from it.
My hon. Friend the Minister repeatedly asked Labour Front-Bench Members how they would change the finances of local government without increasing taxation. The tartan tax, which would not go very far, would be singularly unfair to the Scots people. How will it be done? The Scots people are entitled to know before the election what form of taxation or adjustments to the budget will be introduced by Labour to finance local government in Scotland.
The Opposition are highly critical of the present system, but they have not given one iota of consideration to what they will do, other than scrapping vouchers and dealing with assisted places. Those constitute a drop in the ocean, out of the huge budget of the Scottish Office. The Opposition are failing the country by not revealing what they will do, so that everyone can gang up and vote against them when it becomes clear that their plans are unacceptable.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The director of finance of Glasgow district council told the Minister on Friday that it was all very well for the Minister to say that Glasgow had more money, but in respect of police and fire services and the nursery voucher scheme, more burdens have been put on the city of Glasgow. In real terms the capping limit is down by £2,683,000, which means that Glasgow is getting less than it got before. The Minister should take that on board.
I heard the Minister comment on Friday about trips that councillors made abroad, and the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) also referred to the matter, but not for any vexatious reason. The Minister is the Minister for Local Government, and at any time he can call Glasgow or any other local authority to account. He started making public utterances only when the matter was raised in the press.
I am not here to question the wisdom of any of those trips, but I want to put it on record that every councillor in Glasgow, especially those who met the Minister on Friday, has behaved honestly and worked according to the legislation. No one should imply otherwise.

Mr. Kynoch: That is not what I was suggesting. I suggested that it was a strange prioritisation of

expenditure for councillors to go on those trips at a time when they were trying to make massive cuts, as they call them, and reduce jobs. Prioritisation is the responsibility of government, whether national or local.

Mr. Martin: I was worried that in his public utterances the Minister had implied that the councillors had acted dishonestly. If he thought so, he as the Minister responsible should be able to call anyone in local government to account.
For the first time in my parliamentary life, and for the first time, I think, in the lifetime of Parliament, following the activities of certain hon. Members, we have been required to employ the services of Sir Gordon Downey, because hon. Members have not conducted themselves as the House would expect. If anyone wants to hurl stones, he should look at our own problems. I speak as a Member of Parliament who is not one for travelling abroad. I am deeply ashamed of the fact that we had to bring an outsider into the House to regulate our affairs. Perhaps we should examine our own priorities.
The £9 million deficit of which the Minister spoke was left by Strathclyde regional council, an organisation that he disbanded—against the advice of the vast majority of hon. Members who lived in the region or represented seats there. Glasgow cannot go to Strathclyde council and say, "We want our £9 million", because the Minister has disbanded it. The Glaswegians would have had £9 million in the current year had it not been for the Minister's decision.
The Minister went way over the top when he said that the councillors were only scaremongering. Ninety-day notices have been sent to every employee in the city of Glasgow. Is that scaremongering? Because the councillors must act in accordance with legislation laid down by the House, people are in danger of losing their jobs. That is far from scaremongering. If it is scaremongering, can I tell the home helps in Dennistoun, Possil Park and Springburn that they will not lose their jobs? Two thousand decent men and women may have to go down the road unless we can persuade the Government that more funds should be put into our city.
I hope that the Minister will stop attacking local government, which is in the front line of our caring services. Without home helps, many old people would go from one day to the next with no human contact—without hearing words of comfort from another human being. Our old folks' homes in Glasgow are second to none. They were not built last week or the week before; they were built up through the dedication of men and women in local government. Those people gave their all to local authorities: they worked during the day, and went to council and tenants' association meetings at night. They got rid of places such as Forest Hall, which used to be a workhouse.
When I was a young councillor in Springburn, that old workhouse—set up under the old poor law—was still there. That it is no longer there is to the credit of Pat Trainer, a union official and councillor who was one of my colleagues. Some of my hon. Friends know him. His life's dream was to see Forest Hall destroyed, and replaced by three old folks' homes. How can the staff in those homes, which are second to none, continue their dedicated work if they risk losing their jobs? The great law-and-order party tells us that it will give more money


to the police. What is the point of lifting young delinquents off the streets if we are closing youth and community centres? That is what we are doing now, because of the Government's decisions. We are giving more power to the police. When we were youngsters, the police always told us that the best thing that we could do was keep off the streets and not get into trouble. How can policemen say that in this day and age?
We have lunch clubs enabling elderly people to get out for half a day, giving their carers some respite and time to draw breath. Those clubs are now going to close.
The Minister knows the city of Glasgow. Indeed, he was there last Friday. He will be aware that there are no green fields in the city; it is surrounded by other local authorities. Some of those authorities are, quite unfairly, feeding off Glasgow's services, and are not prepared to put anything into our city. The Minister will say, "But I meet members of COSLA, and they reach a collective decision. They all feel that the formula is fair." Every time I meet councillors from outside Glasgow, they say that Glasgow is a special case because thousands of people go into the city to work and then leave at night—including a good many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). I hope that he will fight the cuts, because some of the 2,000 people who are going to lose their jobs come from his constituency.
Every councillor whom I have met has said that Glasgow is a special case, but none of them is prepared to say the same when they get together in organisations such as COSLA. Anyone who knows Glasgow and its problems must accept that it needs extra finance. The Minister is doing a disservice to men and women who have dedicated their lives to local government, and I hope that he will reconsider.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) spoke mainly about the city of Glasgow. As the House knows, he speaks from a base of enormous personal experience and knowledge of local government in that city. I shall return to one or two of his points, but first let me tell him that, if the Scottish Labour movement regards Glasgow as a special case, the solution is in its own hands. It runs COSLA; it has the dominant majority on the distribution committee. No formula to change the figures has emerged from that dominant body, however.
The first Opposition speaker today was the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has slipped out of the Chamber. I make no complaint about that. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, the hon. Gentleman seemed a bit ratty today: he was not at all his normal sunny self. I do not know whether that was due to the company that he kept this morning or to the opinion polls—

Mr. Gallie: He is always like that.

Mr. Stewart: No, he is not. My hon. Friend is unnecessarily critical of the hon. Gentleman.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was ratty because he was rattled by my hon. Friend the Minister. My hon. Friend asked him about the silence of the Opposition Front Bench, and he remained silent on that key point throughout his speech. Surely it is not unreasonable for

those in local government in Scotland, and Conservative Members of Parliament, to say to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, "We are within a few weeks of a general election. You hope to become Secretary of State. Will you tell us—not every detail but in broad terms—what you would actually do?" The answer is fairly clear—for there was an answer: there is going to be an independent review of relationships between central Government and local government in Scotland. "Vote new Labour. Paradise regained. Another quango." That is a message to have them rolling with enthusiasm to the polling stations on election day: a new vision for Scottish local government.
It was unworthy of the hon. Member for Hamilton to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that there was something wrong in his opening the debate, rather than the Secretary of State. I recall opening such debates myself, when Opposition Members consistently made speeches, year after year, in which they said that the end of the world was nigh. The same message—"This local government settlement is the worst thing that has happened to the people of Scotland since Flodden"—came from the Opposition Benches year after year after year. Every year until now, Opposition Members have said, "It will be all right. Wait for a Labour Government." The message is different this year, however. It is, "If you get a Labour Government, we will not change the figures at all." In fact, as the hon. Member for Hamilton did not admit, the figures in the second and subsequent years would be worse, because the Opposition plan a Scottish parliament with no net increase in public expenditure. Where would the money come from? It would have to come from local government.

Mrs. Fyfe: Has the hon. Gentleman ever made an estimate of the benefit that the residents of Eastwood gain from Glasgow services while contributing not a penny to them?

Mr. Stewart: The residents of Bearsden and Strathkelvin will be very interested to hear that attack from the Labour Benches, which was unanimously supported by Scottish Labour Members who are present. The Labour party believes that the residents of Bearsden and Strathkelvin are all parasites. Let that message go throughout Bearsden and Strathkelvin. Of course they are not parasites, and nor are the residents of Eastwood.
If the good people who run the city of Glasgow believe that people are getting services for free, I would not stop them charging for their libraries, galleries or whatever. I would be in favour of charging. Let them stop complaining, because they have £21 million of mismatch money. That is other people's money. It rightfully belongs to the people of Strathkelvin, Bearsden, East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire and elsewhere.

Mr. Gallie: Does not at least 65 per cent. of local government funding come from general taxation? Therefore, do not the residents of Eastwood probably contribute more than their fair share?

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is being modest in that figure. The real figure is some 85 per cent. It would not


be difficult for me to make a case saying that East Renfrewshire is grossly over-subsidising Glasgow. It is a fact—

Mrs. Fyfe: Give us the figures.

Mr. Stewart: I will give the hon. Lady an important figure if she will just pin her ears back. Aggregate external finance per capita for the city of Glasgow is 80 per cent. above the English average—that is money from the general taxpayer—so let us have none of this nonsense about Glasgow not getting a fair deal from the Government.
The hon. Member for Hamilton implied fairly clearly that Labour would not change the overall settlement, except for assisted places and nursery vouchers. As I have said before, the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) for pointing out in detail what Labour's assisted places pledge means in terms of the figures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries rightly and properly talked about the argument. There would be one extra teacher per constituency—a wonderful pledge. Labour would also abolish nursery vouchers. I know something about nursery vouchers, because East Renfrewshire was one of the pilot authorities for the scheme in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), the Minister with responsibility for education in Scotland, should go into the "Guinness Book of Records", because he introduced the nursery voucher scheme—a major Government initiative—and nobody is complaining about it. Not a single resident of Eastwood is complaining about the scheme. It has been an enormous success in a Labour-held authority, but it would be swept away by the ideology of the Labour party.
I hope that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will confirm my understanding of the figures for East Renfrewshire council. I understand that the permitted increase in expenditure is some 7.63 per cent. and that the grant-aided expenditure is up 6.79 per cent., before allowing for the mismatch adjustment. Those figures seem perfectly reasonable, if not generous.
I shall say a word on the trips-for-votes controversy, as hon. Members from Glasgow seem a bit edgy about it. Nobody is suggesting—or has suggested—that Glasgow councillors have done anything financially improper. On the point about roses, it is reasonable, however, to ask, why councillors did not just get into one of their 27 or 28 limousines and go across the boundary into Eastwood, where, of course, we have blue roses. Looking down the list, I can see that they went all over Europe to look at roses—Rome, Dublin, Belfast, Paris, Geneva. I do not complain about that, but they cannot say, "We have the worst financial crisis in history," and, "We are wholly underfunded by the Government," and at the same time go around the continent looking at roses. That results in a certain lack of credibility about their initial posture. That is a valid criticism. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, it is a question of priorities.
Mention was made of the shadow Chancellor and what he said. Paradoxically, he has done Scottish local government a favour, because too many people are misled by Opposition Members, who say, "It's all right folks.
Wait for a Labour Government. There will be a new nirvana. Money will be pouring from everywhere for you. All will be resolved." That will not happen. If that means that there is greater concentration on financial reality, it will be in the interest of Scottish local government. It will be in the interest of those who work in Scottish local government, those who pay for Scottish local government and those who receive the services of Scottish local government.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: This is a terrible debate. The temptation to blame others for what is going on is strong. Indeed, we are all guilty of it. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) rightly said, people's jobs are at risk, schools and residential homes are being closed and pools are being shut. I do not know who is to blame, but anybody involved in what is going on would be disappointed if they listened to the debate.
All hon. Members know that the Government set total spending limits and grants. They also set overall and local expenditure. If the Red Book three-year public expenditure survey allocations are adhered to—whether by a Labour or Conservative Government—local government will have to change fundamentally.
If Governments insist that local government save money year—on year-we are in the fourth year of funding salary increases from efficiency savings—it will have to consider displenishing in its entirety all community care provision in residential care homes. It will have to consider moving out of local education authority service provision and leave schools to manage themselves. Local authorities will have to consider full-scale privatisations to such an extent that they will become nothing more than contract-fixing bodies.
It is possible that that could happen and the world would not end, but if my constituents were given a choice between what I have described and finding the appropriate finance I am pretty confident—I can speak only for my area, as I do not know about Glasgow—that they would be willing to spend more to get properly funded services. I stood in the sleeting rain on Saturday morning in Jedburgh square, where 1,500 people were shivering in the rain. They were incensed that, on Thursday, the local authority will probably shut their swimming pool. Young people will not have a pool in which to swim, and worse still, doctors will not be able to recommend therapeutic services for elderly people who now receive new treatments in fitness centres instead of taking pills. Youngsters who used to go to the pool on a Friday night will be thrown out on the streets. People are incensed that, for want of £100,000, that facility is to close.
Jedburgh has a sizeable community: it is one of the largest towns in my constituency. The people of Jedburgh cannot just get on a bus and travel to another pool. Even if there were a bus, they would have to travel miles to get to a pool and back, and would take two days to do so.
Local government finance is supposed to enable local authorities to provide a generality of services that are standardised throughout the country. Small authorities may have special circumstances and special problems, because they start with low baseline budgets and cannot find the efficiency savings that the Government require them to make. It may not be the end of the world, but this


year, for the first time, Scottish Borders council will close pools, rural schools—not for educational but for financial reasons—and residential homes. That will not only hurt those who will lose their jobs or access to the services, but cost more in council tax.
People in my part of the world are bamboozled. They do not know how this has come about and whom to blame. The system is opaque, defying attempts to work out whether the local council is doing the right thing. All people know is that they are suffering: their kids are suffering, and their old folk are suffering. On Thursday, decisions will be handed down by the local authority which will cut the fabric of society to the bone, and people will resent that.
The general election is approaching, and I am quite open about the fact that I believe that local government is underfunded by about £150 million for the coming year. My party has said that extra money should be raised, especially for education. When the general election comes and I am going about my business as a candidate in Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I will proudly get on to soap boxes and ask people to pay for education. People at demonstrations that I have attended—I shall be taking part in more of them at the weekend—will cheer me to the echo.
That is my assessment of the political situation. No one is asking for profligacy or waste, and no one is defending what is going on in Glasgow—I do not know anything about people taking trips, incidentally. All I know is that, with a budget of £100 million, my local authority has been put into an impossible straitjacket from which there is no escape, and people in south-east Scotland are hurting.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to an extra £150 million for local authorities, which is more than 1p in the pound on income tax in Scotland. He has also said that the Liberal Democrats would raise 1p in the pound specifically for education. Does that mean that they want to raise income tax by 2p in the pound? Education is only part of local authority expenditure. Higher education must be paid for as well, and I presume that some of that 1p for education would be spent on higher education.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Government have charged us to say where the money will come from, and I am trying to quantify what is required to achieve a sensible settlement for local government next year. Given the figures available to me, my assessment is that £100 million or £150 million is required to provide services of the same high quality as in the past.
My party voted against the tax cuts, without which £2 billion more would now be available. If the Scottish share of that were put into the local government budget, it would provide a 3 per cent. increase, which would amount to between £150 million and £180 million. I would have to persuade the public that that is necessary if they want the services. If they want to have lower taxes and to pay for taxis to take them 40 miles to a swimming pool because the pool in Jedburgh is likely to be closed on Thursday, that is up to them. As a Liberal Democrat and someone who is trying to make sense of the local government settlement, I think that not enough money has been provided.
Education is a priority for Liberal Democrats—I suppose that it is a priority for everyone. We cannot duck the fact that we have had a good education system in Scotland, because we have invested more in it, and I want that to continue.

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. He suggested that his party would provide extra funding. Has he studied the Coopers and Lybrand and Peida report, which shows that local government in Scotland is well funded across the board? We should seek improvement and value for money, not throw more money into local government.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am as keen as anyone to obtain value for money and efficiency savings. I look forward with enthusiasm to engaging in the argument on the Peida report. I can give the Minister two examples off the top of my head. The local authority in Northumberland may receive less per head than the Scottish Borders council, but many of the development workers with the local development commission are not taken into account. It has park rangers coming out of its ears, and they are not taken into account in the local government settlement for Northumberland. So long as the Peida report covers the professionals who deliver the services and obtains a true, costed comparison, I will happily meet the Minister any place, any time, to discuss the nitty-gritty.
Of course, I want efficiency savings: we must ensure that we get value for money. But people would be more enamoured of what we are doing if we provided the proper resources. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred to the new responsibilities that Parliament has given local authorities. Professionals north of the border estimate that the financial burden for community care in the next financial year will be £123 million. I accept that the Government have made allowances for that in the settlement, but the Scottish Office provision is £55 million, which is nowhere near £123 million. Those professionals are not irresponsible party politicians: they are trying to make proper provision under the legislation that the House passed. We give them half the money required to do that—Parliament must stop doing that.
I sponsored the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, which was introduced by a Labour Member. Professionals estimate that it will cost £50 million next year. What have the Government allowed? Zilch, zero, nothing. It is unconscionable to put layer upon layer of responsibilities on the shoulders of local authorities and expect them to provide services out of fresh air. The contention that local authorities in Scotland have saved up to £60 million is merely accounting acrobatics: the figure is nothing like that, and everybody knows it.
The settlement is one of the worst that I have known since I was elected to the House in 1983. I am faced with difficult meetings. I have to respond to a petition containing 3,000 names that were collected in 10 days in Duns, which will lose its educational centre. We are losing swimming pools and sports centres, which keep the kids off the streets. The meeting about the Jedburgh pool was the most difficult hour and a half that I have spent: we all got soaking wet, but we were proud to do so if it made any difference and made the Government think again about the closure.
The Burnfoot project has been in existence for 17 years and has a proven track record. The community is proud of that facility for rehabilitating difficult children: it has been used as a model in other parts of the region. Why is it to be closed? Because the local authority has new responsibilities under the Children Act 1989, for God's sake. That Act is supposed to support kids such as those who will be thrown out the door of the Burnfoot project. It is the economics of the madhouse. In addition, Foulden school is, relatively speaking, a brand new building; its doors are going to be shut and the windows boarded up for financial reasons. That will take the heart out of the local village community. The building will be left to moulder and fall to bits, and loan charges will continue to be paid. How does that make sense? How is that to be explained to people whose kids—primary school children—are going to have to get on a bus and go 15 to 20 miles to and from school?
Those decisions are not being taken lightly by Scottish Borders councillors. They are being made because they have absolutely no alternative. They have a budget of £100 million. There is no fat left. They have no flexibility. Half the budget is for education. They are having to make swingeing cuts in services, to reduce jobs and to lower investment, and they will end up with higher council taxes.
This system of local government finance, of raising only £15 out of every £100 yet being accountable for all expenditure, is no use, has had its day and should be swept away. We need not just reviews of the relationship between local and central Government, although that would help, but a root-and-branch reform so that local councillors can truly represent the interests of their council tax payers and be held to account at the ballot box.
My party has suggested proportional representation, which will make it much more difficult for councillors to hide behind rotten boroughs, and regular elections year after year. If we started thinking in those terms, we could remove the caps and leave local council tax payers to hold the council to account if it is being profligate.

Mr. Bill Walker: That was an interesting speech. Some important aspects of local government were covered. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) may find that some Conservative Members think that councillors and local government should be held more to account locally, and that the best way to do that is through financial accountability. I do not disagree with that. One of the advantages of the pressures that exist at present is that we may at long last take an in-depth and serious look at how local government is structured, funded and held to account.
People can always, as they do, blame central Government because the bulk of the money—85 per cent.—comes from central taxation. There may be merit in removing revenue raising completely from central Government and letting local government raise it all locally. We might then find that Glasgow and elsewhere would take an entirely different view of how the 85 per cent. funding is distributed.
The plain truth is that, with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities formula, pain is being felt in all sorts of different ways. For example, no real account is taken of

the substantial increase in population in my constituency. People want to live in my part of the world, which is not surprising. They want to leave the big cities and to move into country areas, where the quality of life is good. As long as we can contain the numbers, education and all the other facilities will remain at a very high standard, but we may reach a point, and we are getting close to it, where the numbers will make it much more difficult to maintain the quality of services, particularly in education, that we have enjoyed in my constituency.
I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) that the comments about people travelling related to doing so at public expense. If people have travelled from this place—the hon. Gentleman drew attention to that—it is important to distinguish between that which is public expenditure and that which is not. I trust that his comments were not directed at the Sir Gordon Downey aspect and at the Select Committees.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I never mentioned the Select Committees.

Mr. Walker: That is what I am saying. I trust that the hon. Gentleman was not talking about Select Committees. He should read his speeches afterwards. He brought together two different activities in a way that devalued the standing of the House—that is how I understood him. If he disagrees, that is fine, but it is not the first time that he has lumped things together to make a point. He does not always understand that people outside do not have the knowledge to break down the differences, as we do in this place, and that can do terrible damage. If he is really concerned about the reputation of this place, as he claims, he should think carefully about the way he lumps things together—that is the only point I am making.

Mr. Martin: I think I have hit a nerve.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows my views about seated interventions.

Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman ever wants to make any comments or observations about me, just try it—that is my advice for him. I make many overseas visits that I pay for. I have no qualms about that. What is more important, I take my family with me—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I trust that the House will remember my earlier guidance. Perhaps we could now return to the subject in hand.

Mr. Walker: Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Innuendoes are made about the values and qualities of this place. The hon. Gentleman likes to give the impression that he is the only one who cares. I suggest that the vast majority of Members care, so he should be careful when he makes sweeping assertions.
I should like to know from Labour Front Benchers where the money will come from for the Scottish Parliament. I understood the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to say that no more money will be available for local government, because this is the settlement that Labour will inherit, so where will the money come from? He could not tell us what the priorities were going to be either. The speech by the hon. Member


for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was important because it drew attention to the fact that people ought to know what the priorities are, which I agree with, and what they are voting for, which I also agree with.

Mr. Thomas Graham: The hon. Gentleman will realise that we have had 18 years of Tory government and that, in my area of Renfrewshire, the Tories have been wiped out. There are only two left on the council, which the Tories used to control. They have been wiped out because of the bad Tory policies implemented by the Government. The people there want decent education, decent home help services and decent transport. That has all come under terrible attack by the Tories in the House.

Mr. Walker: I have news for the hon. Gentleman: I am a democrat. I fully accept the wishes of the people as expressed at the ballot box. If anything I say or do gives offence, I pay for it and it is proper that I should. It is worth remembering that many Scots are what I call thrawn. They might not find any future Labour Government to their liking and the vote for the other parties in Scotland might suddenly and dramatically increase. That was the experience in the 1960s and 1970s.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) rightly says that the Conservative party has been in government for 18 years. We are held accountable, as we should be. At the general election, we will face the electorate on the basis of having been in office for 18 years. I have watched the smiles on the faces of Opposition Members at previous general elections. At almost every election since 1979, they have assumed that somehow the Labour party would make a dramatic recovery. When it did not materialise, I had to look at the same faces again after the election and they got longer, gloomier and glummer.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are very interesting reflections, but I am not too sure how they relate to the business in hand.

Mr. Walker: They relate to the debate in that it concerns 18 years of local government expenditure in Scotland. This evening we are debating the current settlement. When one compares local government expenditure, supported centrally and raised locally in Scotland, with that in the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly England, it is obvious that other areas are quite capable of providing services. I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that we have to examine all the figures and compare like with like rather than extrapolating from a selected few, but it is clear that the problems do not stem from a lack of money, as substantial sums are being spent.
Perhaps local authorities should consider becoming enablers rather than providers. Some may say that that would lead to job losses, but it would be a diversion of jobs from one sector to another. If Marks and Spencer expanded a store and employed more people, but Woolworths closed part of a store and employed fewer people, there would be a transfer of employment between companies that provided the same service.
The same is true of local government. The inquiry into care in the community in Tayside supports the principle that I hope the House will accept—that, if possible,

the same quality of service should be maintained. Tayside achieved a saving of £200 per head per week. If the same saving were made in other sectors, many more people would gain. What matters is the advantage to those who require the service. After all, we are all in the business of providing services for individuals who need them. That applies equally to Marks and Spencer, local government or anyone else. The individuals who require the service are often forgotten.
I am particularly concerned that the increase in population in my constituency has stretched the education budget and that cuts in languages and music lessons are proposed. Naturally that is a cause of local concern, as people want the teaching of those subjects to be maintained.
I should like Ministers to say that COSLA's formula is not sacrosanct and that there are ways of reviewing and revising it. Population increases in large rural areas such as my constituency should lead to a review of the 85 per cent. of the settlement that comes from central Government.
This year, for the first time in years, local government will have to stand up and be counted. Local authorities will have to tell the people of Scotland why they cannot maintain service provision although their budgets have increased in real terms. The answer is that certain assumptions and projections were made about the changeover, many of which have now proved to be flawed and to require attention. With that in mind, we have to accept that there will be increases in council tax, but the money should be directed at the services that most concern local people, such as education.
I have a question for my hon. Friend the Minister. As the Government have allocated a certain sum to police budgets, what happens if the local authority joint police boards decide not to spend it all? The police would not get the advantage of the increased funding which the Government want to provide and the public welcome, so what would happen to the money?

Mr. Kynoch: To save time later, let me answer my hon. Friend. As the police receive a specific grant that is paid against claims from local authorities, if a local authority does not spend the grant, it loses the benefit.

Mr. Walker: I expected that answer, for which I thank my hon. Friend. If the police grant is not demanded or taken up, the police and the local community lose out and the council gains nothing. We should press councils to make the police a priority. People in North Tayside will want to question the two local councils about the attitude that they have adopted.
Opposition Members seem to be looking forward with relish to the general election. They should never count their chickens until they are hatched.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I am also disappointed by the debate. It is a bit like a poor-oot at a wedding—money which is flung out of the car when the bride leaves. It is a poor-oot in Edinburgh. There is a scramble for the money and if anyone does not grab enough, it is hard luck.
We are talking about people's jobs. Care in the community has become a joke. It has been foisted on to local authorities without the appropriate financial backing. At the end of the day the most vulnerable people suffer: the young, the old and disabled people.
A great deal of anger is directed at councillors in Midlothian. I was a councillor in Midlothian for 16 years and I agree with the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). In the days of county councils, councillors stood by the rate. They were elected or not by the rate. We provided facilities within a sensible budget. We did not have central Government dictating to us. I agree that there should be more accountability. When we have a Parliament in Edinburgh we shall work out a more democratic formula for local government.
There has to be proper reform, not the botched up reforms that we have had in the past that killed off and replaced regional authorities. That is the problem in Midlothian. The Minister agreed to meet a delegation from Midlothian and welcomed us in a formal and reasonable way. I cannot criticise him for that, but the result was a different story.
Midlothian made a case for more money, but was told that the formula was worked out along hard lines. We told the Minister that the formula that led to the mismatch and other problems was calculated on an unacceptable basis and he agreed, but when the case reached COSLA's steering committee, Midlothian lost out. The steering committee voted almost unanimously for the formula to continue although we had proved that Midlothian would lose out not just this year, but next year.
What does it mean? I shall read out two questions from Midlothian to the Minister:
Is the Minister aware that his settlement means a year on year reduction of £3 Million in the grant paid to Midlothian and that this factor alone means a £115 or 16 per cent. increase in Midlothian's council tax?
The formula based assessments have proven to be invalid in that three secondary indicators which remove £2.3 million of grant from Midlothian have failed the statistical test for the second successive year. Is the Minister suggesting that Midlothian Council should cut services to the residents of Midlothian to match up to the indicators which have been proven to be invalid and should have been dropped?
Midlothian and other authorities have statutory duties. They cannot walk away from them, so what should they do? They are currently giving notice to all their employees.
Like the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker), I get rather angry with people who personalise their politics. I do not personalise mine. I do not make personal attacks; I try to be nice. There comes a time, however, when people have to be told the facts of life.
I get angry when people try to discredit Labour and to say that Labour-controlled local authorities are mismanaged, spendthrift, globe-trotting and all the rest of it—because it is just not true. One cannot argue—[Interruption.] I am talking about the people whom I represent in Midlothian, and I defy the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say otherwise. I am talking about Midlothian, and I do not accept that, in one way or another, it is being mismanaged.
Council administrators and employees are very angry. The faulty formula by which councils are being deprived of money is a return to the poor-oot, and that is not good enough. Councils must ultimately face up to the realities. They are soul-searching and tearing out their hearts to try to make ends meet, and they are doing the best that they possibly can.
Councils will have to decide at the end of this week what they can do with the moneys that they have. However, the problem boils down to the fact that they are being shortchanged by the Government. One can say what one likes, but, like everyone else, I know when I am being shortchanged. One can build up the matter, wrap it up in flannel and flowers or describe it in any way one likes, but, ultimately, the people of Midlothian know who are working against them—the Government, who are shortchanging us all. I am arguing the case for Midlothian, but I am sure that, if they have an opportunity in this debate, many other hon. Members will say the same.
I should tell the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) that it is totally unfair to compare his area with ours. I sympathise with those in the big urban areas. Does he know that the population of Wester Hailes, in Edinburgh, is the same as Perth's? Do they have Perth's facilities or amenities?

Mr. Bill Walker: I do not represent Perth.

Mr. Clarke: I am giving you an example. I am not saying that you represent Perth; I know who represents Perth—the lovely lady up there.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman always to address the Chair?

Mr. Clarke: I am very sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
One cannot compare Perth with Wester Hailes, or the big urban areas in Glasgow with some of Scotland's lovely rural cities; and it would be unfair to try to do so. Those cities have natural amenities and resources, whereas urban areas—massive areas of concrete jungle—have very little or nothing at all.

Mr. Walker: I trust that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the cost of providing education in rural areas can be much more expensive because of the distances involved and the problems faced. That is one aspect of the matter. As education is a very large part of local government expenditure—[Interruption.]

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister does not accept that.

Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) accept that—when one compares what one gets for every pound spent—it is not unreasonable to say that one must take a population increase into account?

Mr. Clarke: All I am saying is that like-for-like comparisons are very difficult when the circumstances are absolutely different.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) has just given a splendid example of why invidious comparisons between England and Scotland are absolutely inappropriate?

Mr. Clarke: I totally agree. Because of Scotland's sparsely populated areas, with their massive deficits for road maintenance and many other services, it cannot be compared with England.
It is unfair to write off urban areas and merely to say that they are different from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Tayside. Those areas are different, and they have different problems. All I can tell him is that we should be compassionate to one another. It is not a matter of me taking anything away from other areas. In certain circumstances, areas should be given grants and rights. On that basis, I support the city of Glasgow.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Clarke: I have already given way three times, and I know that other hon. Members would like to speak; I am sorry.
If this debate does nothing else, I hope that it will ensure that those listening to it—not only to my speech, but to those of other hon. Members—understand the reality that we are attempting to describe, so that they can see beyond the smokescreen of allegations about inefficiency and globe-trotting, which, intolerably, is being used to shortchange us all.
People are lying awake at night with worry because of the cuts imposed by the Government on local government—because they do not have a job, because their mothers, fathers or other loved ones will not receive proper medical treatment and because their children will not be educated properly.

Mr. Phil Gallie: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) speaks as a member of the shadow Front-Bench team and as a Labour Whip, and he has just challenged the entire thrust of Labour's position on local government expenditure. Labour has said, "Not 1p more"; but he says, "The Government are shortchanging Midlothian." I can tell him that the Opposition will shortchange Midlothian in exactly the same way, because they are not offering any more cash.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) intervened on the hon. Member for Midlothian, highlighting the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) as to why Scotland receives additional expenditure, and she was quite right. The expenditure differential has been expressed in the Barnet formula. The Government have honoured the formula for many years, and they will continue to do so. By emphasising the problems of rural areas, however, she has not examined the situation in cities and in Scotland's central belt.
One question that must be asked is why Glasgow receives 80 per cent. more aggregate external finance than English cities? Why is there a 42 per cent. greater increase in AEF across Scotland than in similar towns and villages in England? It is a major problem, and it must be dealt with. I suggest that Opposition Members take on board the need to examine how money is being spent in local authorities, and to determine true value for money.
In his pathetic speech, the main criticism made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland did not open this debate. I should tell Opposition Members that the leader of the Scottish Liberals has not spoken in this debate—nor, I suspect, will the leader of the Scottish National party. Perhaps the difference between hon.
Members in the minor Opposition parties and Labour Members is that they have more faith in their junior shadow spokesmen. Obviously the hon. Member for Hamilton does not have such faith. Perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is sitting on the Back Benches. I remind the House of the time when he was relegated there. The hon. Member for Hamilton did not even keep him in the picture of Front-Bench thinking. All hon. Members should reflect on that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) spoke about local authorities and about the belief—particularly in Labour-controlled authorities—that the value of controlling one lies in how much one can spend. I can provide an example of that sentiment from my own days on Cunninghame district council. When I challenged Councillor Jim Clements—whose family was steeped in local government—on why he never became involved with community councils, he said:
They are worthless. They have no money to spend. I only want to be involved when we have money to spread out and provide services across the community.
He never thought for one moment about how that money was earned. That is the difference between Opposition and Conservative Members.
I know that Opposition Members have recently challenged the Government on the health service. We have been told that efficiencies are necessary. I have a letter from the North Ayrshire and Arran trust which challenges the beliefs of Opposition Members. It states:
The numbers of nurses and midwives have increased by 4.6 per cent. since April 1993".

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes cantering down that particular road, I remind him that we are debating local government finance.

Mr. Gallie: I fully accept that point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was attempting to illustrate how wrong Opposition Members are on those issues. They believe that attempts have not been made in other areas, such as the health service, to rationalise and to produce results and wise expenditure levels. Such results have been achieved in the health service, unlike in local government. It is time for local authorities to reanalyse their position. I recognise that I shall have to sit down in the not too distant future to allow other hon. Members to speak, but it is worth giving up several other issues that I wanted to raise to make several causes for thought.
I should like to pick up on one issue in relation to Glasgow. I note that £130,000 has been spent on a glossy magazine to inform people about what the City of Glasgow council sets out to do. I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) nodding his head and saying that that is great. He obviously approves.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I did not say a word.

Mr. Gallie: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman approves. He and his hon. Friends have criticised the Government for spending £600,000 on advertising the nursery voucher system. The public need to be advised about the system so that they know how to use it. That is


purely an information exercise. If it is good enough for Glasgow to spend £130,000 on a relatively small number of the Scottish people—

Ms Jean Corston: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has a Minister asked you whether it is possible for him to come to the House to apologise for a statement made during Environment questions this afternoon? I have had telephone calls from my constituents, whose interests I am sure that you wish to protect. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), said that Bristol city councillors were increasing their allowances by 66 per cent. and that they were going to build a flagship building with turrets at a cost of £1 million. Neither of those statements is true—they are both misleading. Is it possible for the Minister to come to the House to set the Hansard record straight today?

Madam Deputy Speaker: In answer to the hon. Lady's first question, I have received no such notification. As far as the substance of her complaint is concerned, it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the accuracy of statements made by any hon. Member—Minister or otherwise. The hon. Lady has made her point.

Mr. Gallie: Picking up on that point of order, I should like to talk about councillors' allowances. The number of councillors in Scotland has been reduced in recent times by about one third. We now have 1,245 councillors, of whom 739 receive special allowances. One might think that the level of special allowances would have reduced, but the level of councillors' allowances has gone up from £7.1 million to £13.3 million—the figure has almost doubled. We are told that there is not a lot of money in local authorities. I should have thought that councillors would have considered those special allowances.
The situation in East Ayrshire astounds me. The council has 30 members—almost all of whom are Labour—and 29 special allowances are available to councillors. There is something wrong there. Authorities should consider that issue when complaining about lack of funds.
The independent Peida report, put together with Coopers and Lybrand, shows that planning departments in Scotland cost 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. more than those in England. I accept the comments by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) that sometimes more detailed analysis is needed. I have considered the planning development department in my area of South Ayrshire. Small shopkeepers who have tried to put up reasonable signs in a way that would enhance town centres have been constantly badgered by planning officials to stick to petty, small-minded rulings. There is something wrong there.

Mr. Kirkwood: What has that got to do with it?

Mr. Gallie: Planning departments spend a heck of a lot of local authority money. They are getting involved with petty matters and having a major effect on the expansion of town centres.
At Towans hotel in my constituency, the council insisted on keeping a dilapidated building occupied—it was empty but occupied by an owner. Demolition and

redevelopment of the site would obviously have been a better course. The inevitable happened—the building burnt—but the site remains dilapidated. Opposition Members are always shouting about the need for more houses. Additional houses are being missed out on that site.
South Ayrshire council did not seek to operate a pilot project for nursery vouchers. Instead, it has provided its own nursery scheme, building on the number of places available. Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me whether that means that when cash is allocated for the voucher scheme in the coming year, South Ayrshire council will miss out because there will be a removal of previously funded amounts for nursery schemes provided in local authorities that have nursery places?
I am particularly concerned about community care. I do not understand how local authorities can be providers, competitors for places in nursing homes and residential homes and decision makers on spending plans for community care. My hon. Friends in the Government need to look carefully at that. There is considerable waste in the current workings of community care. The costs of keeping individuals in their homes are not always fully considered. Health costs are totally ignored. We must take that on board. I very much regret that community care funds have not been ring-fenced.
Finally, I have one comment on capping. I have some sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) that 65 per cent. of local government funding comes from general taxation. He suggested that the figure was 85 per cent., but the extra 20 per cent. came from the old non-domestic rating element. Irrespective of that fact, local authorities raise only 15 per cent. of local expenditure. Somewhere along the line, there will be a time when the cap should be removed. At that point, local authorities will take responsibility for financial aspects, which would be a jolly good thing.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I am disappointed and angry about the way in which the debate has been conducted. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) talked about people knowing when they had been short-changed. In many ways, that is what has happened to them. The debate has been reduced to issues such as who has not contributed to the debate and some stuff about whether councillors have gone on foreign trips. We are discussing the most important subject facing the Scottish people. The decisions will affect the essential daily services for every man, woman and child in Scotland. They deserve a better debate.
The debate should have been about the kind of local government system that we all seek, about the level of local government services and about employment. It should also have been about democratic control of local decisions. Instead, public opinion has been ignored and dismissed. The Government have never admitted the consequences of their actions, but the people know who is to blame for cuts in services and employment. The Minister has dwelt on trivia, probably deliberately, rather than on substance.
The truth is that local government is totally controlled by central Government. Some 75 per cent. of its services are determined by central Government, as is 85 per cent.


of its revenue. Central Government place capping limits on local government and control its capital spend. Local authorities are not free to take decisions, because they are dominated by central Government decisions. The Government have created the current local government crisis.
We are debating next year's local government finance orders just days before local authorities announce their budgets in the light of what is widely recognised to be the worst local government settlement on record. Throughout Scotland, services are being squeezed, while, at the same time, councils are having to contemplate huge rises in council tax and huge increases in service charges. Even the better-off councils—there are now only a few—are running simply to stand still.
The cash crisis is primarily the result of the accumulated effect of long-term underfunding coupled with the failure of the Scottish Office to meet the costs of reorganisation or provide the resources necessary to meet the new statutory obligations that it has placed on local authorities. Although the Secretary of State continues to build into the settlement assumed savings from reorganisation, his assumptions have been totally discredited by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy study, which remains unchallenged. It found that, since 1995–96, the botched attempt to gerrymander has cost Scottish local government £281 million—almost four times the Scottish Office's estimate. Yet again, the Government's figures have been shown to be pure financial fantasy.
Even the Scottish Office has had to admit that new statutory obligations faced by local authorities, including those under the care in the community policy, the landfill tax, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, total more than £90 million. The Government have failed to provide new resources to meet those new obligations. As a result, councils are faced with having to make staggering cuts of about £350 million—even before taking into account the effect of the 75 per cent. housing debt repayment rules, which have so devastated Scottish council housing provision.
The Minister repeated the Tory boast that grant-aided expenditure next year would increase by 2.2 per cent., with a corresponding rise of 1.1 per cent. in grant support. That is a blatant and foolhardy attempt to mask the extent of the cuts. The Minister has failed absolutely to convince anyone. When transfers, new burdens and pay awards are left out and like is compared with like, it becomes clear that grant support is being reduced by 2.1 per cent. in cash terms. His increase is in reality a reduction.
The Secretary of State tried to steal the show at the Scottish Grand Committee with the announcement that he would permit 15 councils, including my own Angus council, to increase their spending levels by £10 million under the capping regime. He was, however, much less up-front about the fact that the capping relaxation was not accompanied by any new resources. So, it is good news for us but bad news for the others. It is a simple case of divide and rule.
The Secretary of State is trying to dictate to local authorities where the money will go, prioritising spending on the police, fire services, education and health without providing any additional resources to match those priorities. To increase spending according to Scottish Office directions while remaining within capping limits,

local authorities will have to reduce expenditure on every other service. Those are the actual consequences of the Government's proposals.
Surely it is not for the Secretary of State to decide how local authorities should spend public money. Councillors are not Government appointees on quangos, however much he would wish them to be. I accept that the notion of democratic accountability might seem rather peculiar to the Government. The Scottish National party believes that central Government should work in partnership with local government. Instead, the Tory Government seem determined to demolish local democracy at every turn. When the budgets are announced on Thursday, showing an increase in council tax that is estimated to be about 13 per cent., the Scottish people will know that local authorities are not to blame. The electorate will soon have the opportunity to show their contempt for the Government.
By means of a shameful party political propaganda exercise that cost taxpayers £235,000, the Secretary of State tried to argue that local government in Scotland is favourably treated; yet even the consultants who were commissioned to write the report gave it a health warning, urging "extreme caution" in making comparisons at any level of detail. In fact, when comparing like with like, there may be little difference at all in expenditure between Scotland and England.
Most of the expenditure variation is explained by differences in statutory responsibilities and funding mechanisms. Unique Scottish circumstances, such as its geography, climate and levels of deprivation, also lead to differences in need and the cost of meeting it. Any difference that remains is explained—even in the Coopers and Lybrand report—as the result of local councils' policy priorities. The priority in Scotland has clearly been to provide better services of higher quality than in England and Wales, particularly in education. The cuts imposed by the Government are leading to school closures and compulsory redundancies of teaching staff.
The Government should be ashamed of themselves for using the smokescreen of the per head of population figures to try to prove something that the Coopers and Lybrand report shows is fundamentally a sham. Given the spending of £235,000 on the report and £800,000 on nursery voucher propaganda, it is a great pity that the Secretary of State is not half as willing to defend Scotland's record of better standards as he is to squander public money on shameless Tory propaganda. As well as reflecting councils' policy priorities, the higher standard of service provision must surely also reflect the policy priorities of the Scottish people. In that regard, what the Secretary of State's propaganda report may explain above all else is why there are no longer any Tory councils in Scotland. The money would have been better spent on services.
It is nonsense for the Government to rant about relative spending without considering relative revenue. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted that, when Scotland's share of oil revenues is taken into account along with our share of privatisation proceeds, far from being subsidised, Scotland has paid a massive £27 billion surplus to the London Treasury since 1979. The Government's figures give the lie to the Tory subsidy myth. Over the next five years, a surplus of £12.5 billion will be generated. Why are we talking about cuts when such resources would be available to an independent Scotland?
Regardless of the debate over the reports, the findings of the report of the Planning, Industrial and Economic Development Advisers, which was commissioned by COSLA, highlight the devastating impact of the Government's cuts on the Scottish economy. It is perhaps significant that COSLA used the same consultancy firm as that commissioned by the Scottish Office. Perhaps the Secretary of State should accept the Pieda report, which points out that the cuts about which the Minister avoids talking will result in as many as 17,000 job losses in Scotland and the loss of £315 million from Scottish household incomes. That puts into context the trivia that the Minister has introduced into this debate in trying to avoid the reality. The cuts will be made regardless of the outcome of the debate on comparative expenditure and are a direct result of Government cuts. In a wealthy nation, there can be absolutely no justification for running Scottish local government services into the ground.
As for new, blue Labour, it has made it abundantly clear that it will do nothing to stem the financial crisis—a slap in the face that has sent its own people reeling. I deeply regret the fact that the Labour leadership seems to lack the imagination, integrity and political will to fight for Scotland, and is content instead to allow Scotland to run down while taking orders from its Thatcherite leaders in London. Labour will not escape the judgment of the Scottish people. Opinion polls show that, since the announcement of the Brown bombshell, support for new Labour has fallen dramatically by six points, with the SNP closing the gap.
The SNP has a fully costed commitment to restore services lost in local government cuts. We will provide Scottish local authorities with an extra £1.4 billion over the first four years of an independent Scottish Parliament. Local authorities need neither a seventh cavalry nor a slap in the face. They need a party that is committed to defending Scotland and investing in public services—working in partnership with local government, not against it. Only the SNP can be trusted to achieve those goals, and only independence will allow Scotland access to its wealth to secure the future of local government and to maintain its high standards of local services. I look forward to that day.

Mr. John McAllion: I can tell the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) that to describe me as new or blue is a distortion of the facts, and I think most hon. Members would accept that. I was surprised that the Minister began the debate by referring to the opinion poll in The Herald today. That poll showed Labour leading its nearest rivals in Scotland by 20 per cent. Even worse for the Tories, our nearest rivals are the SNP—not the Tories, who are even further behind in Scotland than in England.
The Minister also ran the danger of drawing hon. Members' attention to the other poll in The Herald in which readers were invited to vote for a fantasy Cabinet in a Scottish Parliament. The Secretary of State for Scotland is one of the most hated figures in Scotland, but he has a positive rating of eight. The Minister has a negative rating of minus five, so it was a mistake for him to begin his speech by referring to those polls.
The Minister also said that his claim—that every council in Scotland will be able to increase expenditure this year—bore repeating. Indeed, he claimed that

councils in Scotland would get an additional £140 million—including some £60 million directly from the Government—or an increase of 2.2 per cent. That claim bears repeating only to show that the Minister is a barefaced manipulator of the facts. It makes no allowance for the fact that the capping limits, imposed by the Government, allow for an increase of £75 million, not £140 million. That is an increase of 1.2 per cent., or half the rate of inflation.
The claim also makes no allowance for the pay awards that are agreed nationally between councils and trade unions and that councils are expected to implement. The settlement does not contain a single penny for those pay awards. It also does not make allowances for the new burdens that have been placed on local authorities, to which many hon. Members have already referred. The Scottish Office claimed that the cost of those burdens would be £90 million, but the settlement does not contain a penny to cover that cost.
Far from taking account of the costs of local government reorganisation and its impact on councils such as Dundee, the Government assume savings for local government from the reorganisation, but those savings do not exist. The Minister's claim was bogus and shows once again that the people of Scotland, and everyone else, cannot trust the Tories' claims.
The Minister also spoke of his trips abroad and tried to justify his trip to Korea by saying that he had brought back more than 4,000 jobs through the Chunghwa investment in Lanarkshire. What arrogance for that insignificant figure on the Front Bench to assume that a multinational company would make a major inward investment decision because he happened to visit there. The arrogance of the man is breathtaking. Nobody in Scotland believes for a minute that he is responsible for inward investment in Lanarkshire or anywhere else.
The Minister is personally responsible for jobs in Scotland through the current local government financial settlement and the one that we are debating tonight. Those financial settlements will mean the loss of 17,000 jobs across Scotland in local government. The Minister may dismiss those jobs as not real if he thinks that we do not need people who look after the elderly, home helps, teachers or people who work in family and child centres. Even if we accept his boast about the 4,000-plus jobs he has provided, he is still responsible for a net loss of 13,000 jobs. I wonder if he will apologise to the people of Scotland for his disgraceful record.

Mrs. Irene Adams: The Minister is not listening.

Mr. McAllion: He is not listening because he prefers debates in which only he and his hon. Friends speak. The debate has lasted three hours, and an hour and a half has been taken up by Tories who have kept Labour Members out because they do not want to face reality. They want to cower and hide in the Chamber because they are frightened to face the people in a general election. They are hanging on by their fingernails until the last possible moment, hoping that we will blow it and their bacon will be saved. It will not happen and everybody in Scotland is waiting for the moment when they can pay back all the Tory Ministers and Tory Back Benchers for the misery of the past 18 years.
Another example of the Minister's distortion of the truth was when he said that it was fascinating that COSLA intended an increase in spending of £500 million. The actual figure calculated by COSLA was £414 million. COSLA also admitted that, even if it used tricks such as phasing and delaying implementation—and other devices that it has learnt over the years to try to cushion Tory cuts—the increase is only £180 million, or less than half the figure that the Minister proclaimed. The Minister cannot be trusted. I cannot say what he is, because of the arcane rules of the House, but everybody in Scotland knows what he is. If he repeats any of his statements outside, he will be accused of being a barefaced—I cannot say what he is.
The Minister referred to his meeting with Glasgow city council and he said, in another example of the way in which he twists and manipulates everything, that the council was effectively asking for other councils to get less so it could get more. The key word is "effectively". I know that Glasgow city council asked for no such thing, but the Minister pretends that it did.
I accompanied a delegation from Dundee city council when it met the Minister. The delegation included councillors and people from local authority trade unions, the churches and voluntary organisations. It also included people from Dundee and Tayside chamber of commerce—who are normally on the Government's side, but who were on Dundee's side that time. We patiently explained the cuts that had been implemented in Dundee as a result of the financial settlement. We described the closure of six primary and two secondary schools. I remember a television debate in which the Minister said that there was no reason to close any school in Scotland because of the financial settlement. Eight schools have been closed in my area and many other schools have been closed, but the Minister has never withdrawn that statement.
Dundee has also seen a 37.5 per cent. increase in school meals charges in the past two years. Rich people can afford that increase. Another 30p or 40p from their purse makes little difference, and their kids will still get decent school meals. Poor people, who are just above the income support level, cannot afford that increase, and it could mean that their kids do not get a school meal. We hear no apologies from Tories for that. Staffing levels in schools have also been reduced. We are told that education is a priority, but the financial settlement means the loss of 50 teachers in Dundee.
Dundee has also had to start charging for home helps. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) mentioned home helps in Springburn. My mother was a home help in Springburn and I know the great work that home helps do. Previously, their services were free in Dundee, but we have had to start charging, and that means that old folk cannot afford them. Cuts have been made in voluntary organisations and concessionary travel schemes—the list goes on. The council tax increases that go with the cuts are even more savage. Morally, ethically, socially and economically, the financial settlement is unacceptable, and no hon. Member who genuinely has the interests of his constituents at heart could argue for it.
We explained all that to the Minister at the meeting. Everyone agreed that he was not interested. Only twice did he show a spark of interest in what anyone said. The first time was when he thought that someone had said that

other services in the Scottish Office bloc should be cut to pay for extra funding for local government: he immediately came to life and asked what other services should be cut. The second time was when he thought that someone had said that other councils should get less so that Dundee could get more: again, he became very excited and pleased.
Those are the same old Tory tactics of divide and rule, turning council against council and service against service, while insisting that public services have to be reduced and that the poor people who depend on them must pay the price because the kind of people who vote Tory can buy privately and do not have to depend on the councils. That is the hidden agenda.
The Minister issued a challenge to us to say what other services should be cut in the Scottish Office bloc. That bloc is between £14 billion and £15 billion—an awful lot of money—but its level is decided by the Cabinet, not from on high by God; it is not irreversible, and the Cabinet can decide what formula should be applied and how much money is needed. If the Secretary of State cannot win a better deal for Scotland, he should not be the Secretary of State for Scotland: someone else should be in his place.
Let us stop arguing about bogus points in this bogus forum. Let us go to the country and let the people decide who can best be trusted.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Once again, we have seen the Government playing politics with local government in the vain hope that Labour councils, or even Opposition Front Benchers, will get the blame. I remind them gently that they have been in charge for 18 years and that this local government settlement, the worst for more than 20 years, is the final monument to 18 years of low growth, boom-bust instability and economic failure.
The terms of the debate were set by the Minister, in 46 minutes of obfuscation, fiddles, smokescreen and absurdity. There are two facts that he cannot avoid. First, the job losses and service cuts that he described, in a climax of absurdity, as imaginary, are felt by people throughout Scotland: both those who have suffered this year—6,709 job losses, according to the Pieda report—and those who will be affected by the further job losses and service cuts that will be forced on local councils this week. Secondly, the people in Scotland now understand full well that the Secretary of State controls the service levels via capping and the council tax increases via grant distribution.
There are two ways of comparing this year's Government grant with next year's: in cash terms or in real terms. The simple way is to compare in straight cash terms. Whichever way we look at it, there has been a cash cut for next year compared with this year: the Red Book put it at £50 million, because of estimated outturn; the public expenditure statement in December put it at £25 million; and, even if we strip out the police loan charges and the urban programme specific grant, it is £17 million.
There has certainly been a cash cut, but the Minister talks of a £60 million increase in Government grant. The only way to arrive at that figure is by the imaginary savings from local government reorganisation that nobody


who has studied the subject believes in. The reality is that, as the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy report pointed out, local government reorganisation has cost council tax payers in Scotland £281 million, and they are still paying a reorganisation surcharge in their bills for this year and next year.
The Minister asserted that the amount that can be spent on services will increase next year by 2.2 per cent. Again, the figures can be compared in cash terms or in real terms. In cash terms, the increase is 0.8 per cent., but in real terms we must take account of the new burdens that will be faced by local government next year, and even the Government admit that those burdens will amount to £90 million.
The Government like to talk about disappearing old burdens, such as the £26 million in nursery vouchers, but it is totally illogical to talk about that without balancing against it the £90 million of new burdens that even the Government admit to; the large cut in cash terms becomes a massive cut when we take new burdens into account.
I am glad that the Minister has stopped all the nonsense about uncollected poll tax and council tax that he was going on about a few weeks ago to try to muddy the waters, although he clearly did not understand the Government's rules about such uncollected tax. The reality is that single-tier local government in Scotland is called the Secretary of State for Scotland: he determines the service and grant levels.
That, of course, will change after the general election. One of our main reasons for wanting a Scottish Parliament is so that such decisions can be taken in an open, democratic manner, rather than by one person in the Scottish Office. [Interruption.]
The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), is fond of sedentary interventions. Throughout the Minister's speech, he kept shouting at the Opposition Front Bench and telling us that we should raise taxes; he was obviously upset about the fact that the Labour party has no intention of raising taxes. Unlike the Tory party, which raised expectations before the general election and taxes after, we are in the business of telling the truth before the general election, and only one tax after: the windfall tax.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): Tartan tax.

Mr. Chisholm: Wrong again. We shall raise the windfall tax, to deal with youth unemployment, which will be our priority when we come into government.
We shall have to attend to the building blocks of economic success as a priority after the election, because the underlying cause of the grant cuts and the crisis in local government is the Government's economic failure. We also plan in the first year of a Labour Government to deal with the problem of waste and to examine priorities. My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party has said that his priorities are education, education and education. That is good news for local government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) pointed out.
Once again, Ministers have tried to act as if we were the Government and they the Opposition. That will soon be the case, but they are still the Government tonight and all their attempts to blame somebody else for their failures will not be believed by the people of Scotland. Anyone who had managed to sit through the Minister's 46 minutes would not have been persuaded by any of his arguments. His tactic was to try to confuse by putting up smokescreens and descending into absurdity. This will be the last local government settlement from this Government. If tonight's performance by the Minister is anything to go by, it is certainly time for a change of tack.
My main fire has been directed at the Government, who are responsible for the settlement, but I should point out that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) was equally in a world of fantasy. He and his party made all kinds of promises about what they would do for local government, centring on the claim that they would put £1.4 billion into local government to deal with the crisis, but that is not a credible option and the people of Scotland will not believe it. The Scottish National party makes many spending promises, but never tells us where the money will come from. Labour is the party with a credible alternative.

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, and he will find exactly where the money is coming from if he cares to look at our detailed documents—something that his party has never produced. He offers Scottish local authorities no improvement, because he is dealing with a Scottish Office budget. We are promoting a Scottish national budget, and there is a massive difference between the two.

Mr. Chisholm: My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) referred to Santa Claus when the hon. Gentleman was speaking. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) referred to the planet Zog the other night, and that is where the Scottish National party belongs, with its plans to magic away debt, its conjuring up of massive surpluses by the loading of one parliamentary question, the way in which it made Scotland leap up the international prosperity table from 22nd to eighth in two months and its confetti spending pledges that it scatters with no tax costs.
That point has to be made, because the real choice before the Scottish people at the next election is between the Government and the Labour party. Labour is the only party that can get rid of the Government and is the only party with credible alternatives to deal with the economic and local government crises that 18 years of Conservative government have delivered to Scotland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I call Mr. Kynoch.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has had 46 minutes in the debate already. May I ask why the Secretary of State, who is his boss and is sitting next to him, is not answering the debate? If he is too frightened to reply, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have called the Minister and it is a matter for him to reply if he so wishes.

Mr. Kynoch: We have had the usual local government debate, as I described in my introduction. All Opposition Members have used their usual ploy of calling for more funding and saying that local government is suffering cuts. Thankfully, that is not the case, and we have given extra funding to local government. Of course, that is not our money, but taxpayers' money—something the Labour party always seems to forget.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who made rational and realistic speeches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside referred to a review of grant-aided expenditure formulae with particular reference to rural areas. I can tell them that, with COSLA, we are carrying out a review of GAE formulae, but there has been agreement on both sides that it will be appropriate to do that only once proper financial information is available from the new local authorities. It is quite clear that many authorities have taken a long time this year to make financial information available, so that councils and councillors know what is going on in their areas.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries referred to the business rate and welcomed the fact that we had introduced the uniform business rate, which he rightly recognised has ensured that businesses north and south of the border can compete on a level playing field. In addition, we have ensured that business rates are frozen for businesses with a rateable value of less than £10,000. The Finance Bill proposes benefits for villages and village shops, and we believe that we are looking after small businesses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood referred to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who said that the people of Bearsden and Kelvinside were all parasites feeding off Glasgow.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Kynoch: I will let the hon. Lady correct the remark.

Mrs. Fyfe: I asked the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) in a civil manner—and would appreciate a civil reply—whether he had calculated by how much the people of Eastwood benefit from services provided by Glasgow for which they do not pay.

Mr. Kynoch: I am delighted to hear the hon. Lady rephrase that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) is shouting from a sedentary position.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) the word "parasite". That is clearly untrue, and I hope that even this Minister might have the decency to withdraw that remark under your guidance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard nothing of that nature. [Interruption.] Order. It is a matter for the Minister if he feels that he ought to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Kynoch: If I referred to anything that the hon. Lady did not actually say, I apologise.

Mrs. Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Just for clarification, I did not utter the word "parasite", so the Minister is wrong to attribute the word to me.

Mr. Kynoch: As I have just said, if I said anything that the hon. Lady did not say, I apologise and withdraw that statement. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has significant cheek in coming to the House at the tail end of the debate and with no intention of contributing to it, but—in his usual manner—raising irrelevant points of order.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I have just achieved the rare feat of drawing an apology from a Tory Minister, it was well worth coming in at any stage of the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The House must settle down.

Mr. Kynoch: I should like to continue in a positive vein. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood referred obliquely—as did the hon. Members for Maryhill and for Springburn—to the fact that people around Glasgow use facilities in Glasgow. As I explained to the hon. Members for Springburn and for Maryhill, the GAE formulae take account of commuter traffic and people visiting from outside Glasgow. However, there is no doubt that that matter will be looked at in the general review of GAE.
I can tell hon. Members who represent urban areas that I get as many complaints from hon. Members representing rural areas, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside complained that the GAE formulae do not benefit rural areas. I saw that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) agreed with what they were saying, which shows that the same views are held on either side of the fence.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside also referred to increasing school numbers and their effect on the formulae for education GAE. I responded to that this year, by urging the distribution committee of COSLA and the Scottish Office to look at updating the information on school rolls within the GAE formulae. I am delighted to say that this year the most up-to-date information will be used, which is the school roll as at September this year. The formulae now take account of rising school numbers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr referred to nursery vouchers and said that Labour wants to snatch away those vouchers, which give choice to parents. Vouchers provide £1,100 of opportunity to choose where nursery education is obtained, and I do not think that parents—certainly not the parents in my constituency—will approve of what the Labour party wants to do. I am certain from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood that his experiences prove that point clearly.
In his introductory remarks—which, incidentally, were heard by only 13 of the 49 Labour Members of Parliament who represent Scotland—the hon. Member for Hamilton


(Mr. Robertson) clearly referred to the fact that this was a poor settlement. He talked about new burdens, removing compulsory competitive tendering and an independent review of the relationship between central and local government. But the key question that he did not answer was: if he is so critical of the settlement, what funding would he give if he was in power?

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The funding is the Government's responsibility.

Mr. Kynoch: It is a responsibility that we delight in taking. We believe that we should be the trustees of the taxpayer and that we should give a sensible and reasonable settlement to local government. That we believe we have done.
We heard a remarkable admission from the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who said that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland could not get a better settlement, he should not be Secretary of State for Scotland. What the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, in effect, was that the hon. Member for Hamilton is not fit to be Secretary of State, because he has said that he does not intend to provide more money to local government.
There was much scaremongering about cuts in the debate. Reference was made to the fact that notice has been given to employees, but councils have said that they were issued simply to cover legal liability. That does not mean that any posts will be cut.
I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) did not recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I responded positively to his request to ease capping limits for low-spending councils. He got almost an extra £1 million of spending power, which at least his convenor, Mr. Andrew Tulley, recognised was welcome.
In the debate, Conservative Members clearly laid out the ground rules. We have given a sensible and reasonable settlement to local government in Scotland. We have had nothing but the usual annual criticism from the Opposition. Their only solution is a tax-raising Scottish Parliament. Where will the £78 million for that come from?

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [28 February].

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 256.

Division No. 87]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Baldry, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bates, Michael


Amess, David
Batiste, Spencer


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Beggs, Roy


Arbuthnot, James
Bellingham, Henry


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ashby, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Body, Sir Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Booth, Hartley


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boswell, Tim





Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Brandreth, Gyles
Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Sir Graham
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorst, Sir John


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hargreaves, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Harris, David


Clappison, James
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Hawksley, Warren


(Rushcliffe)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Congdon, David
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hicks, Sir Robert



Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Couchman, James
Horam, John


Cran, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Douglas-Hamilton,
Jessel, Toby


Rt Hon Lord James
Johnson Smith,


Dover, Den
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
King, Rt Hon Tom


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knox, Sir David


Faber, David
Kynoch, George


Fabricant, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fishburn, Dudley
Legg, Barry


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lidington, David


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lord, Michael


French, Douglas
Luff, Peter






Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew
Shersby, Sir Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sims, Sir Roger


McLoughlin, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Madel, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spink, Dr Robert


Marlow, Tony
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stephen, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Allan


Merchant, Piers
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Sweeney, Walter


Moate, Sir Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tredinnick, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Page, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Paice, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, David
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waterson, Nigel


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Richards, Rod
Whittingdale, John


Riddick, Graham
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Willetts, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rowe, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wood, Timothy


Sackville, Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Bowen Wells and Mr. Sebastian Coe.


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Austin-Walker, John


Adams, Mrs Irene
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Ainger, Nick
Barnes, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barron, Kevin


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bell, Stuart


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashton, Joseph
Bennett, Andrew F





Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Berry, Roger
Graham, Thomas


Betts, Clive
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gunnell, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hain, Peter


Burden, Richard
Hall, Mike


Byers, Stephen
Hanson, David


Caborn, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim
Henderson, Doug


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heppell, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Canavan, Dennis
Hoey, Kate


Cann, Jamie
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Chapman, James (Wirral S)
Home Robertson, John


Chidgey, David
Hood, Jimmy


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clapham, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Howells, Dr Kim


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cohen, Harry
Hutton, John


Connarty, Michael
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jamieson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Janner, Greville


Cousins, Jim
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Dr Lynne


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
(B'ham Selly Oak)


(Perth Kinross)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Dafis, Cynog
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Darling, Alistair
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)


Davies, Chris (Littleborough)
Khabra, Piara S


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Kirkwood, Archy


Denham, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Lewis, Terry


Dixon, Rt Hon Don
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Donohoe, Brian H
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eastham, Ken
Loyden, Eddie


Ennis, Jeff
Lynne, Ms Liz


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)


Fatchett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Faulds, Andrew
McFall, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Fisher, Mark
Maclennan, Robert


Flynn, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Don (Bath)
MacShane, Denis


Fraser, John
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Galloway, George
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mandelson, Peter


Garrett, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


George, Bruce
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Gerrard, Neil
Martlew, Eric


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Maxton, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
Meacher, Michael


Godsiff, Roger
Meale, Alan






Michael, Alun
Salmond, Alex


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Sheerman, Barry


Milburn, Alan
Simpson, Alan


Miller, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morley, Elliot
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Ms Marjorie
Spellar, John


Mudie, George
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mullin, Chris
(Dunfermline W)


Murphy, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stott, Roger


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Strang, Dr Gavin


Olner, Bill
Straw, Jack


O'Neill, Martin
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Pickthall, Colin
Thurnham, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Pope, Greg
Touhig, Don


Pope, Greg
Trickett, Jon


Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Vaz, Keith


Prentice, Mrs Bridget
Wallace, James


(Lewisham E)
Walley, Ms Joan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wareing, Robert N


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Welsh, Andrew


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wigley, Dafydd


Radice, Giles
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Randall, Stuart
(Swansea W)


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Rendel, David
Winnick, David


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Worthington, Tony


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wray, Jimmy


Rogers, Allan
Wright, Dr Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rooney, Terry



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. Joe Benton.


Ruddock, Ms Joan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Resolved,
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, dated 12th February 1997, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1997–98 (HC 272), which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Grant in aid of building works at Dunblane Primary School and Grant in aid of Local Authority revenue costs resulting from the Dunblane tragedy (HC 273), which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Housing (Scotland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
This is the annual opportunity for the House to debate the housing support grant order. The debate provides an opportunity to consider not only the detail of the orders, but wider issues relating to housing and housing finance.
The order provides that the total level of housing support grant payable to Scottish local authorities next year will be £15.2 million. Grant for mainstream council housing totalling £11.9 million will be paid to three authorities-Highland, Shetland and Western Isles. Broadly speaking, that sum represents the difference between the eligible expenditure and the relevant income of those authorities which, in the absence of grant, would have a deficit on their housing revenue accounts. Its purpose and the assumptions used are explained in detail in the report that accompanies the order.
The housing support grant order also includes an element—the hostels portion—that provides a contribution towards the running costs of local authority hostels for the homeless. Hostels grant will total £3.3 million to be paid to 20 authorities across Scotland, which will help to support around 2,300 places for homeless persons.
The 1997–98 grant calculations assumed expenditure of £834 per house on the management and maintenance of the housing stock. This represents an 8.2 per cent. increase over the equivalent figure for the current year, and brings the estimate into line with authorities' actual expenditure in 1996–97. For the purpose of the housing support grant formula, the assumed average standard rent for next year has been increased by only 2 per cent., to £39.38 per week, in line with the general rate of inflation.
I should also stress that that is not a forecast of rent levels, nor is it a guideline or recommendation; it is simply an assumption used solely for the grant calculation. Actual rents charged by authorities are, of course, a matter for local decision, and with so few authorities now qualifying for grant in respect of their housing costs, subsidy decisions have little impact on these decisions.
I understand that some authorities propose to increase rents well ahead of inflation. It will be for them to justify those increases to their tenants. Local authorities should consider very carefully the consequences for tenants of increasing rents substantially. I remind the House that the average local authority rent in Scotland in the current year, at £31.28 per week, is well below the English equivalent of £40.06.
As hon. Members will be aware, housing support grant has declined steadily since the early 1980s, in line with the Government's policy of moving away from such indiscriminate subsidies and targeting resources towards those tenants who are most in need through the housing benefit system. In the current year, it is estimated that council house tenants in Scotland who are unable to afford the full cost of their housing will receive rent rebates totalling £587 million. Housing benefit assistance will continue to be available for those who need help with their housing costs.
With only three authorities now qualifying for grant in respect of their mainstream housing, exploratory discussions have taken place with Shetland, the Western Isles and Highland councils with a view to reducing their housing debt to manageable levels and thereby removing the on-going need for HSG subsidy. Those discussions culminated in my right hon. Friend's announcement on Budget day of the Government's intention to commute a portion of the housing debt of the three councils.
The proposal is to convert the annual HSG subsidy paid to the councils into a capital grant and use that money to reduce the councils' outstanding debt to a level where they will no longer require subsidy. The on-going cost of servicing the debt would be offset against future HSG provision.
Rather than continuing to operate the current rather cumbersome HSG procedures for only three authorities, the Government consider that the early redemption of debt would be a more efficient use of available resources. The debt redemption proposals would place the housing revenue accounts of the three authorities on a firmer footing. Subject to detailed negotiations with the three councils, we would hope to redeem the debt before the end of the 1997–98 financial year.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister give an assurance that agreement will be reached with the councils, and that no formula or solution will be imposed upon them?

Mr. Robertson: I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. That is why we are not acting right away: we want to talk to the councils and take them with us every step of the way.
I also draw the attention of the House to the question of general fund contributions. Such contributions represent a subsidy from council tax payers to council tenants. Like HSG, this kind of subsidy is indiscriminate, in that it benefits all tenants regardless of their personal circumstances. It is also unnecessary, as tenants who are unable to meet the costs of their housing receive assistance in the form of housing benefit.
Therefore, as has been the case in recent years, the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before the House on 3 February, prevents authorities from budgeting to make general fund contributions to the housing revenue account next year.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Minister provide an assurance that he will be sympathetic to the representations made by Inverclyde council? Not long ago, the Minister of State visited an area of Greenock that is bedevilled by very serious housing problems. There are equally grave housing problems elsewhere in Greenock and Port Glasgow. I hope that the Minister will treat those representations as sympathetically as his hon. Friend did some 18 months ago.

Mr. Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I treat sympathetically and sensitively all representations made to me.
I believe that the Government's proposals for housing support grant next year constitute a fair and reasonable subsidies package that balances the interests of the tenants, the council tax payer and the national taxpayer. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: The Conservative party has waged a vendetta against council housing for 18 years, culminating in the Minister's open admission that he wants to see every council house in Scotland sold off and transferred to the private sector. He claims that that should happen with the consent of tenants.
However, we can be absolutely certain that, if this Government were returned for a fifth term, they would put the screws on council tenants even tighter, and force them out of the council sector and into the hands of private landlords. That would not be considered if there had been a Labour Government or a Scottish Parliament for the past 18 years. Housing will be the responsibility of a Scottish Parliament, and Scottish people who are concerned about housing cannot wait for the return of a Labour Government and the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.
The facts about housing—particularly council housing—speak for themselves. Since 1979, there has been a net decline of 343,000 houses available for rent in Scotland. Last year, local authorities built only 308 new homes. At the same time, about 185,000 households are on local authority housing waiting lists, and the number of households applying to local authorities as homeless has more than doubled over 10 years, from 20,000 to more than 41,000. About 1,000 people sleep rough in Scotland each night.
Since the present Prime Minister took office nearly seven years ago, housing investment in Scotland has been cut by 39 per cent. in real terms. If investment since 1990 had simply kept pace with inflation, there would have been enough money to build an extra 26,500 affordable homes. The house condition survey was conducted during that period, and the facts it revealed are chillingly familiar: 95,000 houses in Scotland below the tolerable standard, 580,000 houses in urgent need of repair and 267,000 houses affected by dampness, including an estimated one in three council houses.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Is it not true that 18,000 homes were built in Scotland in each of the past three years? Is it not also projected that 130,000 homes will be required in the next 10 years? On that basis, are the Government not on target to meet anticipated need?

Mr. Chisholm: The hon. Gentleman should do his sums again. Average new build in the housing association and the council sector has averaged about 4,000 in each of the past 10 years, compared with an average of 12,000 a year under Labour in the 1970s.
Housing is also a health problem. I have the advantage of being responsible for the areas of housing and health, and I frequently point out in health debates that, if people did not live in cold, damp homes, it would have a beneficial effect on the health of the nation.
There is another reason why the distinction that the Secretary of State tries to make between health and local government is completely phoney. Local government is crucially involved in health delivery via community care, but also through housing and other areas that are very important when considering the causes of illness.
This order represents a further turn of the screw, with the housing support grant cut by more than 20 per cent. relative to last year. The order makes an unrealistic rent



assumption of £39.36, which is 26 per cent. above the current average in Scotland. It also makes inadequate allowance for management and maintenance.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: This debate is intended to inform the House, so that we may have a sensible and rational discussion. The hon. Gentleman has criticised the level of the HSG order and the rent and management and maintenance assumptions that I have made. Will he give his figures in that regard, so that we may compare my proposals with his in the time available?

Mr. Chisholm: As in the local government debate, Ministers are trying to turn the Opposition Front Bench into the Government. We are nearing the end of 18 years of vicious, downward—spiralling cuts in housing—particularly council housing-and the next Government will clearly have difficulty addressing that situation quickly. The people of Scotland want to know only that our priorities in government are totally different from those of the Minister.
The Minister said openly that he wants to sell off all council houses in Scotland. We say quite clearly that council housing will remain central to our policy. The Conservatives want to pursue a privatisation agenda in Scotland, but we will take a twin-track approach: council housing will remain central, but we shall also support and encourage new housing partnerships in order to secure additional investment. Tenants will play a central and crucial role in those partnerships—the Government do not allow that under their local housing company proposals—and investment will be additional, rather than a cover for massive cuts, as has occurred under this Government.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman obviously got a bit heated and carried away, but he did not answer my question. [Interruption.] I shall keep talking while the hon. Gentleman gets his lines from the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell), so that she does not need to whisper in his ear. Are we to take it that the Opposition are unwilling to tell us alternative figures to those in the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order, and that we shall therefore argue and debate blindly about what the Government intend to do, getting nothing in return from the Opposition?

Mr. Chisholm: Obviously, when we get into government, we shall have to examine very closely several factors that are relevant to housing. The first factor is the level of the public sector borrowing requirement and, alas, one of the problems that we shall need to confront is a public sector borrowing requirement of at least £26 billion.
If 1992 is anything to go by, the sum will be much larger, because then we were told that the PSBR would be £30 billion, and it was actually more than £45 billion. That is a serious onstraint—[Interruption.] I am answering the Minister's question, if he would contain himself. That is a serious constraint on any Government's housing policy. It is not the situation that we would choose to inherit, but I remind the Government that that public sector borrowing requirement was run up by the Conservative Government; indeed, it is the final monument to their economic incompetence.
Obviously, we shall want to examine that. I shall talk about the 75 per cent. rule in a moment, so I shall touch on it only briefly now, by saying that we shall also want to consider the effect of the rule, including its effect on housing benefit. Obviously, when we have reviewed all that, we shall come up with specific proposals to start turning the crisis around, but, because of the vicious downward spiral that has continued for 18 years, there is no magic solution.
Once again, I refer briefly to the Scottish National party, which is committing a cruel deception on the Scottish people by pretending that housing debt can be magicked away. We realise that there is a serious problem of housing debt, but it cannot be magicked away, because, as this evening's figures show, the loan charges from housing debt run at more than £500 million a year, and in an independent Scotland, servicing that debt would put 3½p on income tax, quite apart from the many other SNP spending pledges.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I regret breaking into the hon. Gentleman's delusions, but I refer him to the policy document, which clearly sets out how that can be done. The Government have carried out a similar debt commutation for water services. If the hon. Gentleman had the imagination, he would realise that, when all Scotland's resources are available-given that we shall subsidise during the next five years by £12.5 billion, according to the Treasury's figures—those problems could be tackled. Under the hon. Gentleman's solution, there is no solution.

Mr. Chisholm: That was an interesting and important intervention, because it is the second, or possibly third, time that the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) has used the figure of £12.5 billion tonight. That figure is the Scottish National party election manifesto: everything depends on that. The SNP has tabled a parliamentary question that talks about £27 billion retrospectively. It has not received a parliamentary answer that talks about £12.5 billion, but the SNP has somehow managed to conjure that up.
The reality is that the SNP has made such an enormous number of spending commitments that they make any sense only if the SNP can conjure up massive surpluses, and that is the problem. On the point that the hon. Member for Angus, East made about debt commutation, of course debt can be commuted, but the debt must still be serviced; the loan charges must still be paid. In an independent Scotland, the loan charges on the present debt would be the equivalent of 3p on income tax. I do not mind the SNP advancing that policy; I do mind it pretending that it is a no-cost option.
I return to the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order. Before the various interventions, I was talking about the unrealistic rent assumptions and inadequate management and maintenance allowance. That leads to the general subject of rents.
Since the Government came to power, average council house rents have increased by 535 per cent., compared with a general inflationary movement of 162 per cent. Although the housing support grant affects only a very few councils now, those rents will increase further as a result of the order, and also as a result of the 75 per cent. rule, which I want to discuss now.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman appears to be au fait with all the figures. Would he care


to tell the House the value of housing benefit, and, specifically, the value of housing benefit that has gone into council house coffers, during the same period? That is still taxpayers' funds supporting council housing.

Mr. Chisholm: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes that point, because it was going to be my next but one point, and I am surprised that the Conservative party should want to highlight that, because housing benefit is crucial.
One problem is a lack of figures. I asked a parliamentary question about housing benefit on 29 January 1997, and I was told that housing benefit expenditure figures for Scotland were not available before 1988–89, which is unfortunate; but I shall refer to that question in a moment.
I shall first refer to another parliamentary question, the answer to which, by coincidence, was given to me on the same day at column 250, which shows the full scale of the devastating cuts caused by the 75 per cent. rule-even greater than some housing lobbying organisations have said. In the detailed table on 29 January, I was told that, next year, gross council housing capital expenditure will fall from £341 million to £221 million—a devastating cut of 35 per cent.
I know too well that that will have a devastating effect on council houses in my constituency. Throughout Scotland, 30,000 houses will not have the central heating work, the window replacements or the other necessary modernisation that they require. That is the key problem with the 75 per cent. rule.
I shall now mention something that we are considering very carefully in our review of policy—the housing benefit effect of the 75 per cent. rule. I do not have all the information yet, but I have contacted every council in Scotland to ask a specific question: what element of this year's rent increases is there purely to plug the investment gap caused by the 75 per cent. rule?
In Edinburgh, for example, £1.86 million has been added to council house rents so that a small part of the necessary window programme, which would otherwise be wiped out by the 75 per cent. rule, can be carried out. I want to obtain those figures from every council in Scotland. Then, to balance against the 75 per cent. rule, we shall have a figure that tells us how much extra has been added to rents, and therefore how much extra has been spent on housing benefit because of the 75 per cent. rule. The Government have taken no account of that in imposing that rule.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to the following question, which he did not give in the Scottish Grand Committee in Montrose? God forbid, if there were to be a Labour Government, what would he do about the 75 per cent. rule? Would the rule stay at 75 per cent., would it be reduced to or 30 per. cent. or 25 per cent., or would it be abolished completely?

Mr. Chisholm: I believe I have shown that we are taking a completely different approach to the matter; I cannot give a specific answer until I have done the research which the Minister has not bothered to do. He has imposed a 75 per cent. rule without even thinking of its implications for taxation via housing benefit.
We accept that the 75 per cent. rule has a PSBR effect. We shall be confronted by a massive PSBR resulting from the Government's economic incompetence; that is one element. The second element is the effect on housing modernisation, and a third element, which the Minister has forgotten, is the effect on housing benefit.
Unlike the Government, we acknowledge that there is a serious problem in the effect on modernisation and the effect on taxation via housing benefit. All that will be taken into account before we make a specific recommendation. The Government do not acknowledge the problem, because their fundamental reason for imposing the 75 per cent. rule was to force council houses into the private sector by starving the council sector of funds.
The Government have highlighted the fact that 72 per cent. of council tenants are on housing benefit, so one can be certain that the increase in housing benefit resulting from the 75 per cent. rule will be large. If we extrapolate the Edinburgh figure of £1.86 million, which is 5 per cent. of the council housing stock, and multiply that by 20, we are talking about almost £40 million, most of which is housing benefit. I do not know the final figures. We are examining the matter in detail.
Increased housing benefit is not just a public expenditure problem. The Government have shown in their housing policy that they are happy for rents to go up and for housing benefit to take the strain. That causes a public expenditure problem, and an affordability problem, with 72 per cent. of tenants on housing benefit. As rents go up, that creates deep poverty traps if people have such high rents that they cannot move from benefit into work.
Affordability is at the heart of our policy for public rented housing. If rented houses are not affordable, deep poverty traps are created. That is already beginning to happen in the housing association sector in England. With the reduction in housing association grant in England, people cannot afford to move from housing benefit into work. That is the last thing we want.
Affordability is the key factor in rented housing, together with security of tenure. When I speak to tenants, affordability is their main concern in relation to rented housing, but the Government have forgotten about that. Because so much of our economic strategy is based on the movement from welfare into work, we are particularly concerned about the tendency to let housing benefit take the strain and to let rents soar. We do not find that acceptable, on social or economic grounds.
Homelessness is more than just a housing problem. It will be eliminated only by getting the economy right and creating jobs. That is why our policy on youth unemployment is also a crucial housing policy. I emphasised in the previous debate that the one tax that we will impose early in the next Parliament is the windfall tax, which people in Scotland recognise is a just tax on the excess fat-cat profits of the privatised gas, electricity and water industries.

Mr. Wallace: As it may have some relevance, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what impact the windfall tax will have on Scottish Power and Scottish Hydro-Electric?

Mr. Chisholm: There will be a tax on the gas, electricity and water industries. Everyone knows about


their excess profits. The tax will not have any effect on prices for consumers. Those are excess profits, which we shall examine carefully.
Homelessness is closely related to economic development. Another aspect of the windfall tax will be the setting up of an environmental task force, which will carry out housing repairs as part of its remit. We have a many-pronged approach to the housing crisis, and that is one part of it.
There will be no magic-wand solution. Our priorities for housing are fundamentally different from those of the Conservatives. We shall end the vendetta against council housing. We shall continue to regard council housing as central, but we are open to new housing partnerships in order to secure additional investment. We shall pursue that twin-track approach to turn around the desperate crisis in Scottish housing, and provide people with the warm, decent homes that are an essential part of a civilised society.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). I hear once again proposals from the Opposition to establish yet another quango. Every argument that they ever advance seems to involve the creation of just one more of these bodies.
When the hon.Gentleman spoke about the windfall tax, he failed to address the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) with regard to the effect on the Scottish utilities. There have been no massive profits. The windfall tax suggested by the hon. Gentleman is a tax on fuel. That is what he means and what the effect would be, because the windfall tax would be passed on to the customer. People across Scotland should recognise that.

Mr. Bill Walker: As I understood the case presented by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), the Opposition are talking about profits made in the past, but the tax would be levied on the current position of the companies and would therefore come out of present-day prices.

Mr. Gallie: My hon. Friend is right. The regulator has already confirmed that, and the hon. Gentleman must take it on board.
I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not turn up at the Chartered Institute of Housing conference in Dundee on Thursday morning.

Mr. Chisholm: I was active on the Committee that considered the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill, which is a United Kingdom Bill, despite the fact that the Government did not recognise it as such and did not put a Scottish Office Minister on the Committee.

Mr. Gallie: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment, but he is the shadow housing Minister for Scotland. I should have thought that he would attend that important conference in Dundee. He was missed by those who were there. Some thought that he was absent because he has recently had a hard time in Scotland on housing issues,

principally because of the Labour party's change of tack. Despite his claim that Labour wants an improvement in housing stock in Scotland, any potential source of funding for that has dried up, following the comments of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) that there would be no other funding.
When the Opposition speak about the problem of housing, they miss an important change that has occurred in recent times—people's aspirations. It is recognised that 80 per cent. of people in Scotland want to be home owners. Since 1979, home ownership has risen from 35 per cent. to almost 60 per cent. People have put vast sums into the housing stock in Scotland. They have been pleased to invest their own money and take pride in their properties. That has meant that a burden has been lifted off the taxpayer. The public sector has to find less money to invest in bricks and mortar.
Another major change has occurred in regard to housing benefit. Before 1979, investment was falling: as we can all recall, the hammer had been put on Government expenditure by external sources. The realities of the economy demanded that public expenditure had to be cut. At that time the Labour Government were failing to invest in houses.
When the Conservatives became the Government in 1979, they examined the means of funding the array of public sector stock. Instead of funding bricks and mortar, they decided that it would be much fairer to fund individuals. People who needed support for housing received it through the housing benefit system. The present figure, as promoted by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), is £587 million coming in through the housing benefit system in Scotland.
Our rents are 25 per cent. below levels in England. If Scottish and English rents were equated, there would be an additional £130 million income. That is £130 million that could be invested in public sector housing. Perhaps there are good reasons for the difference. The hon. Gentleman mentioned one-the difficulty of moving from benefit into work. Forcing up rent levels would create problems. Perhaps a halfway house could be found. However, there is money in the kitty that could be used if councils were prepared to charge levels of rent that would still be seen as reasonable.
The right-to-buy scheme introduced by the Government not only gave people pride, but created massive opportunities for work. The extra investment in housing by individuals created work not for the large housing contractors, but for the smaller ones. That has greatly benefited those seeking work in the service industries recently.
The Government made another major change. They went out of their way to try to identify the quality of housing in Scotland, and, through Scottish Homes, they have established a new "below tolerable standards" criterion. Since the first statistics were issued, improvements in housing stock have increased year by year. I believe that the money involved has been well spent.
Let me bring a pet issue to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. I refer to this year's change with respect to the non-housing revenue account. We have now listened to COSLA, and have removed the requirement for local authorities to provide the private sector with


grants for repairs and maintenance. I think that that is wrong. You can bet your boots that now that local authorities have been given discretion, the money will go into the public sector. The private sector also needs improvement. People with their own homes who are not terribly well off need the grants that have helped cities such as Glasgow immensely over the years.
We should consider a specific aspect of housing in Scotland: sheltered housing. There are now 34,000 sheltered housing units in Scotland, while there were only some 2,000 or 3,000 in 1979. I am proud that the Conservative Government delivered in that regard; it is a pity that more people do not give them credit for it.
The order makes provision for hostels, and I am glad to see that south Ayrshire is on the list. However, I should like to hear the Minister's views on the homelessness legislation and the way in which it currently works. I feel that, in many instances, emphasis should be placed on hostel provision. My constituents and I are fed up with young girls who become pregnant, take advantage of the legislation and end up with houses. That is not fair to others on the waiting list, or, indeed, to the young girls concerned. They are pushed into unfriendly, sometimes hostile, environments, and are left on their own, surrounded by resentment. They are preyed on by their peers, and by others. Sheltered hostel accommodation for such people would be very welcome.

Dr. Godman: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that young girls become pregnant in order to acquire homes in the communities in which they live? Where is the evidence for such a malign comment?

Mr. Gallie: A number of 16 and 17-year-olds in my constituency have been housed under the legislation, and there is resentment among other constituents, some of whom have waited for six or seven years to be housed under the normal system. It is from my constituents that I get my evidence, and I tend to believe my constituents.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that a young woman becomes pregnant in order to live in a damp and virtually uninhabitable house in a grotty, rundown street, what does that say about the life that that young woman was living before?

Mr. Gallie: I do not think that the hon. Lady listened to what I said to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is now not listening in any case.

Dr. Godman: It is not true.

Mr. Gallie: I never claimed that young girls deliberately went out to get pregnant. What I am saying is that an extraordinary number of 16 and 17-year-old girls do get pregnant, and do end up being housed under the homelessness legislation. It would be far kinder to them, and to all concerned, to enable them to go into proper units where they would receive support—the support that their families should have given them, but cannot give them now.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gallie: I will, but time is short.

Mr. Walker: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Walker: I wonder whether there is a new system of ruling in the House. Do all occupants of the Chair understand that the chap who is on his feet has the right to speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all occupants of the Chair are fully aware of the procedures of the House, and carry them out.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it astonishing that one of your colleagues on the Chairmen's Panel should let you down in the way that he did.
Perhaps Opposition Members will tell us why this generation has such a huge problem of young single mothers.

Mr. Gallie: I well understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I do not want to follow that line. I have given my views, as, like every other hon. Member, I have a democratic right to do—irrespective of sedentary comments from some individuals who should know better.
It is said that the solution to all Scotland's housing problems is to establish a Scottish Parliament. Such a parliament will do nothing for Scotland's housing—except, perhaps, take away some of the resources that could be put into it. I do not see what a further level of politicians, bureaucracy and requirement for funds will do to help Scottish housing. It will merely absorb funds that could have been used to provide housing stock.
Finally, let me comment on the 75 per cent. rule mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm). Scotland has been in a privileged position in recent years: since the introduction of the right to buy, Scottish local authorities have been allowed to spend 100 per cent. of their capital receipts. That has not been the case south of the border or in Wales; I am not sure about Northern Ireland. It was left to local authorities to try to reduce council house debt, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister has said, they did not do so. At that point, some discretion must be removed. This year the figure is 25 per cent. Perhaps 75 per cent. was a little hefty, but if anyone is to take the blame, it must be the councils themselves, as they have failed to act responsibly.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: We are grateful to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) for reminding us of the political and philosophical gulf between the two sides of the House. If I understood him correctly, he proposed that pregnant single women should be housed in hostels rather than being given adequate and proper homes. I have no doubt that, were the impossible to happen and the Government survived another term, that policy would be implemented, and babies would be born in hostels. I am sure that the Conservatives would consider that an efficient way of saving money.
On a more positive note, let me take up what the Minister said in his opening speech about the current talks between the Scottish Office and local authorities—particularly Western Isles council—about the outstanding debt burden, which, in the case of Western Isles council, is about £40 million. I welcome the Minister's reassurance that the discussions with the council will be consensual, that there will not be an enforced solution to the matter and that he will seek to reach agreement with the council on how best to resolve it. In principle, that idea is worth supporting. I hope that the discussions will result in agreement.
It is worth pointing out that the debt was accumulated because of the huge shortage of public housing in the western isles. As a result of the failure of previous local authorities to tackle the problem, in the 1970s the newly created Western Isles council had to embark on a large house building programme, which has left it with a very large outstanding debt.
On a less positive note, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) mentioned the changes proposed to the 75 per cent. rule. The change is causing much concern to Western Isles council and it will impact on its ability to begin to tackle some of the huge problems that it faces in bringing its housing stock up to the standards that are required—and which should be demanded—of any local authority in this day and age.
I remind the Minister that it was his Government who issued guidelines that led to the housing conditions survey of 1991, which showed that 29 per cent. of council houses in the western isles suffered from serious dampness or disrepair. That is a phenomenal proportion. To repair those houses properly would require about £4 million-worth of improvements in the coming year alone. There is a huge shortfall between those needs and the money that is available to the local authority. Part of that shortfall will be caused by the 75 per cent. rule.
Before last year, Western Isles council was able to raise between £500,000 and £1 million through council house sales to reinvest in improving its housing stock. Last year, the 25 per cent. rule was introduced, but the new 75 per cent. rule could mean that only £140,000 will be available in the coming year.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I am listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the 75 per cent. rule, but he will have heard what his hon. Friend said: that if he were Minister, the 75 per cent. rule would stay.

Mr. Macdonald: I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend said. He gave me some new information and pointed out the way in which the 75 per cent. rule will impact on the public sector borrowing requirement and on taxation, forcing up housing rents and therefore public expenditure to meet the cost of those rents. He pointed out accurately and aptly that the Government simply have not thought the change through. They are hoping to save money, but it is not clear that they will save the amount that they had hoped. I fully accept that my hon. Friend will have to look at the way in which the money seems to be ending up back in the PSBR.
The Government have reduced the amount available to the Western Isles council for capital improvements by £1 million from 1 April. Taken together, the total amount

available to the council for capital improvements could be as little as £1.5 million in the coming year. As recently as 1990, £4 million a year was available. In the early 1980s, it was £6 million or £7 million a year. There has been a catastrophic collapse in the amount that the Government are giving local authorities to tackle the severe housing problems that they face, particularly in rural areas.

Mr. Gallie: I listened to the hon. Gentleman the other day on the radio—he is a caring Member—when he expressed his reservations about young ladies who cannot get homes. At the same time, however, he expresses concern about capital investment in housing. I am sure that I heard him say that he did not want people on Department of Social Security benefits on Benbecula and that he wanted to knock down a number of perfectly good homes there. Will he expand on that?

Mr. Macdonald: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Nobody in his right mind would want to knock down perfectly good homes. The houses to which he refers are Ministry of Defence stock. Some are perfectly good, and I would like to see them retained; others are well past any kind of repair and should be cleared away. That would be obvious to anybody who looked at those houses. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at them if he wants to be convinced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leith made the point that, because of the Government's cuts year on year in the housing budget, we are seeing not just a housing crisis, particularly in rural areas, but a health crisis, as people's health is affected when they live in houses that are damp, draughty and not properly insulated. It is also an economic crisis, because the cuts have a direct impact on local businesses and local employment. Many small businesses, such as builders, rely heavily on the money that used to come their way through the public sector to improve and develop housing stock.
In taking the money away, the Government are hitting not just small businesses but people on low incomes, the health of the nation and the economy of Scotland, particularly the economy of places such as the western isles, where the reduction in expenditure is immediately discernible. That is why I so welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to look at housing partnerships, to release new money to reinvest in the housing programme that is much needed. I am sure that that will be the direction in which we shall go after April.

Mr. Bill Walker: At least we now know that the solution to the problems of housing in Scotland lies in a windfall tax, which somehow will not affect or have any impact on Scottish Hydro-Electric or, indeed, the other Scottish power company. The truth, of course, is that it is bound to. Then, of course, there will be a "twin-track" approach. What do Labour Members think has been happening over the past few years, where we have seen the development of housing associations and the creation of Scottish Homes?
I suppose that that is—to use the language of modern times—a twin-track approach, because one is making use of the private and public sectors, working in co-operation so that there are public and private sector funds, and the two together provide the answers. The reality, however,


is that a group of people sitting in Edinburgh discussing and debating the matter will not provide answers tomorrow to the situation that many people face in Scotland.
We should consider the history of Scottish housing and ask ourselves what lessons can be learnt. The Government's proposals reflect a change of emphasis and priorities. They are applying pressure to make change happen. Sadly, we know from experience that we have to take a carrot-and-stick approach, which gives rewards for change and imposes penalties for not changing. That is what the Government have been trying to achieve in this difficult and complex area against a background of family break-up.
The family structure has changed more in the past 30 years than in the previous 300 years. There was a time not all that long ago when the family took responsibility for all its members. Much as we may like to go back to that, the reality is that we are now living in a world in which many families do not want to take responsibility for their offspring. We must deal with that problem: there is no point in saying that it does not exist, or blaming people. I believe that the blame lies with all of us.
We have created an environment in which young people, for whatever reason, want to leave home, and their parents do not care whether they do so or not. Ask any social work department whether that is a statement of fact: we know that it is. The issue is how we address that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) provided part of the answer: it is not the entire answer. He suggested that a modern form of hostel accommodation could be provided. There is some merit in that, especially if it is run by people who care. The Salvation Army and the YMCA have a Christian ethos and a caring attitude, and perhaps there is scope for developing that area to deal with some aspects of the problem. I accept that it is not the whole answer.
Hon. Members know my views on housing benefit, which I have expressed down the years. Local authorities have deprived themselves of vast sums of money, which they could have used to carry out maintenance and repair work. The Opposition's view is not shared by Conservative Members, because our view is conditioned by experience, and we believe that if things are not working as well as they should, changes must be made.
In the past 18 years, the Government have tried to shift resources. It is tragic that thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been put into bricks and mortar that turn out to be valueless, because the homes that have been built are unsuitable to live in. If that had been done by private investors and speculators, they would have gone broke. Homes were not built to design standards, and the quality was such that they were not built to last. Worse still, local authorities failed to maintain them.
Those of us who are on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will remember the first visit that we made to Glasgow. We were told that there was no dampness problem. That was a joke, because we found that it existed on a massive scale. The local authority denied that there was problem.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Nonsense.

Mr. Walker: It is on the record. What I find so disturbing is that people will not face reality. They should

ask themselves what they should do to address the problem. I am not opposed to using public money to resolve social problems, but I object to using public money again and again when that has obviously failed. If we are to spend public money to build houses, there is merit in doing so in partnership, because the other partner has a vested interest in ensuring that the property is built to a reasonable standard. I am not complaining about the twin-track approach: I am merely saying that the Government are already taking that approach.
Local authorities too often supervise themselves. I do not blame the authorities for that; it is a structural weakness. We should have changed that years ago. They should not be the provider and the supervisor or inspector. A separate body should have that task, because Chinese walls do not work, as we know from bitter experience.
The Government have done more than any previous Government to address the problem of special needs housing. I am proud of what we have achieved. The present arrangements, which involve housing associations and the private sector, help to reduce the amount of money for specific grants. However, they do not reduce the amount of public money that needs to be injected into special needs housing.
Housing benefit should be seen for what it is: it is not free money, it is taxpayers' money that comes out of a separate budget. We, quite properly, criticise the Scottish National party for pretending that we can wish away the housing debt. All that we can do is transfer it to another area of public responsibility and accountability. Someone else has to pick up the tab; someone else has to pay the interest: that someone else is the taxpayer, because there is no one else to do it.
It is difficult to find rational answers. Some people see local government as one thing, central Government as another, and the taxpayer as having no direct link with either. The truth is that the taxpayer has a direct link with both, and it is the taxpayer who picks up all the bills. The Government are trying to find a mechanism for reducing local authority housing debt, which I think is a scandal, because it should never have been allowed to reach such a level. They are doing the right thing and creating the right pressure, and their carrot-and-stick approach will help. Housing benefit is the carrot. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) is wrong if he thinks that the Government have not worked that one out, because they have. That is why they are shifting resources to bring about change.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. We face a difficult problem. I welcome the fact that the Church takes an interest in these matters. I hope that it realises that it has a part to play. In the past, the Church brought and kept people together. If anyone has failed in that area, it is the Church. Churches have not been able to persuade the populace that families should accept some of the responsibility. They have failed in that, not the politicians.
National and local politicians have failed to look at the whole canvass, because they have had vested interests in different areas. That is unfortunate, because the people who suffer are those in need, whatever their background and wherever they come from. If we are to have a caring, balanced society, we must have an appropriate housing policy. That is the Government's aim, and it is interesting that the Labour party in recent years has followed our policies.

Mr. James Wallace: In a contribution that may be largely critical of the Government, I start with a note of congratulation, or at least thanks, to the Minister for his statement that there should be continuing negotiation and discussion with Shetland Islands councils, as with the other two councils, on the commutation of the outstanding debt by the end of the forthcoming financial year, 1997–98. That will be welcomed. As I said in the Adjournment debate that I secured last month on rural housing, no matter who occupies the Treasury Bench after the next election, I trust that that will be seen through.
The less complimentary part of my speech follows. As has already been widely mentioned in the debate, we are debating a housing support grant settlement that, combined with the cuts in the funding of Scottish Homes, will lead to a substantial withdrawal of investment in Scottish housing in the year ahead, following a significant cut in investment in the present year. That takes place against a background of homelessness and poor housing conditions.
The visible signs of street homelessness indicate a reduction in housing investment. The Government introduced a Scottish rough sleepers initiative when they made their public expenditure announcement in December. We should be thankful for small mercies, but it is important to recognise what a small mercy this one is. The expenditure totals £15 million over three years and £3 million in the first year. That compares with £92 million spent in London in the first year and £270 million spent in London over the first three years. I accept that the scale of the problem is different, but, proportionately, it is not that different. It puts into context what the Government are doing in terms of the rough sleepers initiative. We welcome the fact that they have been converted to the principle of it in Scotland because it has had some results in London. The regret is that the initiative has not been better funded.
Although there are at least 1,000 young Scots, or Scots of any age, sleeping rough at night, in 1994–95, 41,500 households applied as homeless. That was a small drop on the previous year, but double what it was 10 years ago. Households translates into about 76,000 people, of whom 19,800 are children. At our constituency surgeries, most of us see at first hand the problems that can be caused by homelessness, albeit that people come to us to discuss what are essentially local government responsibilities in terms of housing. They are not necessarily people without a bed to sleep in at night. They may be in overcrowded housing or young married couples with a family still having to share with one set of parents or another. That brings considerable tension and, as I know from my own constituency experience, unhappiness and frustration.
In terms of the state of housing, 30 per cent. of Scotland's housing suffers from dampness, condensation or mould and 85,000 houses are officially below tolerable standard. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) gave the impression that all poor housing in Scotland was in the public sector, but 77 per cent. of below tolerable standard houses are in the private sector.
Much of the below tolerable standard and damp housing in the public sector was built by private sector contractors. That does not excuse what happened, but, even if one wants to look back on history, there is a problem today: a problem of dampness, of condensation,

of mould and of houses below tolerable standard. Anyone who has seen the video that last month by the Edinburgh Tenants Federation will have been made forcefully aware of the appalling conditions in which some of our fellow citizens have to live.
The reality for many people, particularly for young people, impinges so much on their lifestyle and on their education, the chances are that a child in a homeless family is regularly having to change schools, teachers and syllabuses and is unable to establish good solid friendships, which in time means that he is unlikely to reap the full benefit from his education.
A study of 1,000 primary school children in Edinburgh found that 22 per cent. of those living in damp houses were suffering from colds, compared with 11 per cent. in dry houses, so if children live in substandard housing, the chances are that they are missing more time at school because of illness. If they live in overcrowded conditions, the chances are that they will not have the opportunity of a place of quiet to pursue study.
That puts pressures on family relationships, leads to a lack of motivation and may—one would not wish to generalise because many young people manage to overcome many of these deprivations and handicaps—lead and contribute to disruptive behaviour. The Minister's comments about home-school contracts sound nice and cosy in leafy middle-class suburbs, but for a kid living in overcrowded housing with dampness and condensation, who has little motivation or is having to move around bed-and-breakfast accommodation, home-school contracts are a different thing altogether.
We have that background and a reduction in housing investment. It is estimated that in the present year investment in council housing will be a third lower than the planned level for 1996–97. On top of that, about £70 million has been cut from the Scottish Homes approved development programme. That represents a loss of new build particularly in the housing association sector, but also in the public sector and the council house sector. That means fewer roof repairs and fewer window replacements. I have already had correspondence with the Minister on representations that I received from tenants in the Grieveship scheme in Stromness in Orkney. Central heating and rewiring work was not done. Adaptations for people with disabilities will not be done.
That will impact not only on individual tenants, but many small businesses. For many construction companies, contracts for council house refurbishments are an important source of continuing work. The Minister asks, as those on the Treasury Bench often do: where will the money come from? Sixty-three jobs in the construction industry are said to follow on from £1 million worth of investment. If we reduce investment by £1 million, we are likely to lose 63 jobs, with about £500,000 worth of benefits to be paid out, not to mention the tax forgone.
In London, tuberculosis is 200 times more prevalent among homeless people than among non-homeless people, according to the national average, so today's housing cuts can be tomorrow's health service expenditure. If the Shelter estimate is that the cost of keeping a household in bed and breakfast accommodation is about £7,900 per annum, if the Median housing association rent in Scotland is £1,606, or if the average council house rent is £1,626, there could be a saving of £6,300 per household in finding permanent


accommodation. Often the problem in Government is that they consider just one narrow part of the budget, make cuts there and do not consider the consequences in terms of increased expenditure elsewhere.
It is estimated that the policy on capital receipts will have a damaging impact on the scope for investment in public sector housing in the year ahead. I was unconvinced by the proposals by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who seemed to be trying to wriggle out of the fact that he was not making any commitment and to find some means of dressing his proposal up. He at no point recognised an important point, which the Minister would certainly disagree with, relating to local discretion.
The Minister made great play of the fact that, if councils are going to put rents up by more than the rate of inflation, that will be a matter for them and they will then have to justify that to their tenants; but surely there is a case for local authorities to make the judgments themselves as to how much should be repaid in terms of outstanding debt from their capital receipts and how much should be invested or reinvested in their housing stock. That is an exercise of local discretion that they should justify to their local electors. If they think that the local authorities have got it wrong, the resolution of that will come at the ballot box.
A substantial amount will go out of investment in housing in Scotland this year as a result of the Government's increased capital receipt repayment requirements. Against a background of homelessness and housing quality in Scotland that leaves so much to be desired, that cannot stack up as a policy for housing in Scotland. That is why the sooner the Government go, the better it will be for housing and for the people who have suffered the consequences of poor housing and homelessness in Scotland.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Let me begin by picking up a few points that were raised by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), who unfortunately is not in his place. He referred to the Government's generosity in creating housing benefit to pay people's housing costs. If there were not so many millions unemployed, the housing benefit bill would not be so large, so it might be better if people had jobs instead of benefit. The hon. Gentleman alleged that home ownership would remove burdens from the taxpayer as people would no longer be council tenants. He must have forgotten about mortgage interest relief at source, which is certainly a considerable burden on the taxpayer. I do not object to it in principle, but if there is generosity to owner-occupiers, there should also be generosity to tenants.
I was surprised by the attitude of Conservative Members towards single mothers. I should point out that, by virtue of being a mother who is taking care of her child, a single mother carries the same responsibility as any other mother. It might be more appropriate to direct any critical remarks to those who may be dodging responsibility for the same children. Instead of trying to tidy people away into hostels, in might be more appropriate if Conservative Members considered that single mothers have just as great a need for housing as families with two parents. Their children have the same need for decent homes as any other children.
The Minister made no reference to the many families who live in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, where it is normal for the children to have gastro enteritis. It is absolutely shocking and must be brought to an end.
Once again, the Government paid no attention to the fact that the provision of refuges for women who suffer domestic abuse is nowhere near adequate. All those deficiencies must be addressed.
Let me refer to housing below tolerable standards. The hon. Member for Ayr referred to steady, unrelenting progress. That is simply not true as COSLA's figures demonstrate. Last year, 84,000 houses in Scotland in the public and private sector were below tolerable standards. Only 6,000 were repaired. At that rate of progress, it will be 2010 before the problem is addressed, but fortunately we shall have a new Government before long and I am certain that faster progress will be made.
The housing support grant was £213 million 18 years ago. Next year it will be only £15 million. In 1979, all authorities were eligible, now it is only a few. In the past decade, £2.4 billion of direct Government support has been removed from housing in Scotland. Local authority money was cut to put money into Scottish Homes and now its budget has been cut and the housing associations do not have the money to carry through agreed and approved projects to timetable.
On rents, I hope that the Minister will answer a particular question. Council tenants in Glasgow are alone in carrying on their rents the capital debts from other properties that they do not inhabit. The properties have been sold off to the housing associations or demolished, but the capital debt still has to be paid. Why do the tenants have to carry the cost of that capital debt? What justice or fairness is there in that? From what he said at the Scottish Grand Committee meeting in Hamilton, Michael Hirst, the chairman of the Tory party in Scotland, seemed to believe that the council tax payer paid the debt. It is high time that he caught up with reality and realised that it is carried by council tenants. Will the Minister explain why he considers that to be fair?

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Can the hon. Lady tell the House who she thinks should pay the debt?

Mrs. Fyfe: Does that mean that the Minister thinks that council tenants should have to carry the capital debt for houses that have nothing to do with them, just because they happen to be tenants? Does he think that is fair? If the Government had any sense of responsibility they would look at the matter.

Mr. Robertson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fyfe: No, time is too short. The Government talk about controlling inflation, but they are not bothered about council tenants' rents. Scottish council rents are sky high. They have increased by 535 per cent. since 1979, compared with a general inflation rate of 162 per cent. Why should that be inflicted on people simply because they are tenants and not owner-occupiers?
The cuts in Glasgow have affected important works such as fuel saving and insulation schemes, window replacements and even help for people with disabilities. As a consequence, people's health is being affected.
I could continue, but I know that others are waiting to speak so I shall make just one last point. Recently National Childrens Home Action for Children launched its programme for homeless youth. I had the honour to represent the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party were also represented. There was no sign of any Conservative Member. Why could not the Tories find one man or woman in the whole of Scotland to express sympathy for homeless youth at that event?
Housing must be higher on the agenda, become a priority and get the attention that it deserves. I look forward to a Labour Government achieving that.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) said that he had evidence that there was no damp housing in Glasgow. He must have spoken to a different council from the ones that I know as I have often raised cases in the House involving damp housing. The hon. Gentleman also said that if private sector companies built damp housing, they would not make money.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Martin: It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to ask me to give way when I have so little time to speak. I have news for him. Mitchell Comus, Crudens and Wimpey all built damp, non-traditional houses in my constituency and throughout the city of Glasgow. The corridor-type houses in my constituency that attract damp were built by the private sector because a Tory Government told local authorities that they would not get housing grant unless they built non-traditional houses. Therefore, the Tory Government must carry some of the blame.
The hon. Gentleman said that the private sector would not do that. I can take him to properties that have been built by the private sector and have made companies massive profits.
Some people enjoy living in multi-storey flats. There are some extremely nice blocks in my constituency and throughout the city of Glasgow. However, those who live in other blocks feel that they have no choice. As a party of law and order, it is important to provide a concierge service in every multi-storey block throughout the country. We cannot expect police officers to take the lift up and down to patrol such dwellings. Police officers stay on the ground floor, so it is important to have a concierge system. I am glad that the Minister visited the Sighthill district in my constituency and encouraged the local authorities to establish concierge systems. It is sensible use of taxpayers' money as there has been a vast improvement in the quality of life in those blocks and the feeling of security among the tenants.
Not all tenants can leave their council houses and buy flats or houses. For domestic and other personal reasons such as short-term contracts at work, some people have to pay rents, which are far too high for those who cannot claim housing benefit. It is a shame that hon. Members do not recognise that many people fall into that category.
I shall conclude as others wish to speak. I do not agree with the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) about setting up hostels for unmarried girls. That is absolute nonsense, but I agree with him about housing improvement grants. In the last financial year, some tenants were able to get housing improvement grants for tenement buildings, but now the grants have run out. I urge the Government to review housing improvement grants.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I realise that time is of the essence, so I shall be as brief as possible. I should tell the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that it is interesting that his local council is talking to the Government about a commutation of debt, as that is something that the Labour party thinks cannot happen but which Governments do whenever it suits them.
The Government have made this debate almost obsolete by reducing housing support grant until it almost does not exist. Given the extent of Scotland's housing problems, I believe that the Government are pursuing the wrong policy and are going in the wrong direction. In recent years, there has been an appalling lack of investment in housing, and the escalating homelessness problem begs urgent action.
The significant aspect of this debate is that the housing support grant itself has been virtually eroded. The fact is that, 18 years ago, the grant was £213 million, with general fund contributions of another £100 million for investment. Next year, the combined total will be only £15 million. In the past decade, therefore, a staggering £2.4 billion in direct Government support has been cut from the housing budget. Between 1989 and 1996, the Government's neglect has inflicted on our budgets a 39 per cent. real-terms cut. Next year, there will be a further real-terms cut of 30 per cent.
The cuts have been aggravated by the senseless rules on debt repayment. The Secretary of State has tried to argue that they do not comprise a cut, but he is fooling no one. The rules mean that Scottish local authorities and Scottish Homes receive £193 million less than they otherwise would have received. Quite simply, given the problems that we face, that is the most severe type of cut.
The Government equally cannot wash their hands of the housing debt problem because they created it. As a direct result of their right-to-buy legislation, the number of council houses has been reduced by 31 per cent. Most of those houses were of the highest standard, but they were sold at prices that were substantially below market value. About £4 billion has been lost on right-to-buy discounts—a sum that is remarkably close to the level of housing debt. While punishing local authorities and council tenants for a debt problem caused by their policy, the Government stand guilty of allowing Scotland's housing to deteriorate further, adding to long-term and short-term problems.
The hypocrisy of the Labour party's leadership never ceases to amaze me. At the conclusion of this debate they will vote against the Government, but they have already admitted that they have nothing to offer those concerned with housing in Scotland. At the Scottish Grand Committee sitting, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) was given several opportunities to declare


that Labour would change the debt repayment rules, and his silence spoke a thousand words. Today, all we heard was some waffle about his studying the matter further. While he stalls, however, damage is being done by Tory Government policy, which gnaws away at housing provision.
Labour's defence on the matter—which is as feeble as its opposition—is that the ills of Scottish housing inflicted by 18 years of Tory rule cannot be righted in 18 months. Perhaps Labour Front Benchers would earn more sympathy from the Scottish people and from housing organisations if they had shown themselves willing to do anything. They are using Tory misrule as an excuse to do nothing.
Scotland does not need two more Tory years, and the Scottish people will not accept two more Tory years. I ask the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) to tell us whether Scotland will receive its equivalent share if, as expected, banked capital receipts are released in England. We have seen the housing policy for England. On an equivalent basis, however, will about £500 million—the appropriate sum—be released for Scotland? If not, it is yet another sign that Labour has nothing to contribute.
There must be an absolute war on shortfalls in Scottish housing. The Labour party is failing Scotland. It is giving us only more of what the Government have given us, and that will not do.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: We have had a fascinating almost 90-minute debate, and the Government have clearly set out our spending plans and priorities in a crucial sphere which affects everyone in Scotland. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) for their support.
The principal spokesman for the Liberal Democrats spoke in the debate, and once again showed that their answer to everything is to tax, tax and tax. If we added up all their spending pledges, income tax in Scotland would be more than 30 per cent.
The Scottish National party indulged in its usual fantasy figures, pretending that £4 billion of council housing debt can somehow be magicked away in an independent Scotland and be forgotten about and cease to exist.
The spectacle, however, was provided by the principal Opposition party, the Labour party. Today it promised not one extra penny for housing in Scotland and confirmed that 75 per cent. debt repayment would stick. Whereas I had support from my hon. Friends on the Government Back Benches, not one Opposition Back Bencher supported the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Hamilton should not sit there chuntering away, because he was not in the Chamber for the debate and did not hear a word that was said in it. He does not know what the hon. Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) or for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) were saying or how they were criticising him—[Interruption.] I do not know where he was, but he cannot sit there and chunter away about what was said in the debate, because he was not here. He may well have had a very valid reason not to be in the

House. That is fine, and I understand it. However, he should not pretend to understand that he knew what happened, because he does not.
We have clearly set out our spending priorities in housing across Scotland. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 246.

Division No. 88]
[8.44 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Couchman, James


Amess, David
Cran, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arbuthnot, James
Curry, Rt Hon David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel G)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton,


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Rt Hon Lord James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dover, Den


Bates, Michael
Duncan, Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beggs, Roy
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bendall, Vivian
Dykes, Hugh


Beresford, Sir Paul
Elletson, Harold


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Brandreth, Gyles
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bright, Sir Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)



Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
French, Douglas


Budgen, Nicholas
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gallie, Phil


Butcher, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Butler, Peter
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Gill, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Cash, William
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Churchill, Mr
Gorst, Sir John


Clappison, James
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


(Rushcliffe)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grylls, Sir Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Colvin, Michael
Hague, Rt Hon William


Congdon, David
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Conway, Derek
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)






Hampson, Dr Keith
Moss, Malcolm


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Needham, Rt Hon Richard



Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hendry, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Sir Robert
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Paice, James


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Horam, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pawsey, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Porter, David


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Richards, Rod


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Riddick, Graham


Jessel, Toby
Robathan, Andrew


Johnson Smith,
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Rowe, Andrew


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Key, Robert
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Knox, Sir David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kynoch, George
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Sir Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Legg, Barry
Soames, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Stewart, Allan


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Madel, Sir David
Sweeney, Walter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sykes, John


Malone, Gerald
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thomason, Roy


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Trend, Michael


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard





Viggers, Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Walden, George
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Mr. Richard Ottaway and Mr. Matthew Carrington.


Whittingdale, John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Allen, Graham
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Alton, David
Denham, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dixon, Rt Hon Don


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Donohoe, Brian H


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joseph
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Austin-Walker, John
Eastham, Ken


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ennis, Jeff


Barnes, Harry
Etherington, Bill


Barron, Kevin
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Battle, John
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bayley, Hugh
Fatchett, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bennett, Andrew F
Fisher, Mark


Benton, Joe
Flynn, Paul


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Blunkett, David
Fraser, John


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galloway, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
George, Bruce


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil


Byers, Stephen
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Canavan, Dennis
Gunnell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Chapman, James (Wirral S)
Hall, Mike


Chidgey, David
Hanson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clapham, Michael
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Howells, Dr Kim


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


(Perth Kinross)
Hutton, John


Dafis, Cynog
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)






Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Janner, Greville
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, Dr Lynne
Radice, Giles


(B'ham Selly Oak)
Randall, Stuart


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Reid, Dr John


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rendel, David


Keen, Alan
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Khabra, Piara S
Rogers, Allan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooney, Terry


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Litherland, Robert
Salmond, Alex


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Sheerman, Barry


Llwyd, Elfyn
Simpson, Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Snape, Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spellar, John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


McNamara, Kevin
(Dunfermline W)


MacShane, Denis
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Stevenson, George


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Strang, Dr Gavin


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Jack


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Maxton, John
Thurnham, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Tipping, Paddy


Meale, Alan
Touhig, Don


Michael, Alun
Trickett, Jon


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Turner, Dennis



Tyler, Paul


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Vaz, Keith


Milburn, Alan
Wallace, James


Miller, Andrew
Walley, Ms Joan


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Wardell, Grareth (Gower)


Morgan, Rhodri
Wareing, Robert N


Motley, Elliot
Welsh, Andrew


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wicks, Malcolm


Mowlam, Ms Marjorie
Wigley, Dafydd


Mudie, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Mullin, Chris
(Swansea W)


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Wilson, Brian


O'Hara, Edward
Winnick, David


Olner, Bill
Wise, Mrs Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wray, Jimmy


Pickthall, Colin
Wright, Dr Tony


Pike, Peter L
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pope, Greg



Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Mrs Bridget
Mr. Clive Betts and Ms Angela Eagle.


(Lewisham E)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Welsh Development Agency Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House will be aware of the provisions of the Bill, the purpose of which is to amend section 18 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 to raise the financial limit of the agency from its present level of £950 million to £1,350 million. The Bill is a routine, technical measure to permit on-going public expenditure to finance the agency's activities without prejudice to future spending decisions.
I was asked in Committee how long the proposed increase of £400 million would last. The annual amounts that contribute to the limit are derived from a series of activities that have to be based on the best assumptions at the time, including the total that can be afforded for the agency's programmes, the estimate for total capital and current receipts, the likely level of repayments and the permitted level of the budget for running costs. On top of that would be any supplementary provision that could be made in-year. It is really not possible to state with any certainty how long increases in the agency's financial limit are likely to last, and I would not wish to pre-empt future public expenditure decisions either generally or specifically.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked me to provide the total figure for 1997–98 and 1998–99 that will count against the agency's financial limit. I have written to him and a copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. Approximately £62 million is planned to count against the agency's financial limit in 1997–98 and about £101 million in 1998–99. Those figures should be taken as only indicative figures for the purpose of debate, and they are liable to change.
I was pleased to be able to respond to the wishes of members of the Committee in another respect—for the sums counting against the agency's financial limit at the end of each financial year to be reported more widely. Members of the Committee will already be aware that the agency's annual report, a copy of which is laid before Parliament, carries a statement of the agency's expenditure to date counting against its financial limit. I have, however, agreed that the Welsh Office's departmental report should also include figures showing the agency's progress against its financial limit, starting with the 1997 departmental report.

9 pm

Mr. Ted Rowlands: In some ways, I regret that it looks as if this Bill will be the last of the Welsh Development Agency Bills because of its provision that such matters will in future be dealt with by statutory instrument and in a debate of an hour and a half. I regret that because, even during the passage of this Bill, we have probed and discovered aspects of the agency's expenditure, budgets and future targets, which are of interest and concern to us all.
The most important fact is that there is a Bill at all and that, after 18 years, a Welsh Development Agency has survived. Those of us who recall the heyday of early Thatcherism—in which any form of government intervention was denied entirely and it was thought that everything should be left to the market and the money supply—will be fascinated by the agency's experience over the past 18 years. There was supposed to be no fine-tuning of the economy, but the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England now fine-tune on a monthly basis.
The most extraordinary and interesting development of the agency, which has been spending very large sums of public money—I support that expenditure—has been in ensuring the location of major inward investment. By any standards, it represents regional, development area policy of the kind that goes back to post-war Britain. It is strange that, considering everything else that has been said ideologically over the past 18 years, the agency has been fulfilling a rather traditional, long-standing function. Indeed, it has gone beyond that.
I found the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading fascinating for the way in which it seemed to counter the concept of non-intervention. We have not only intervention, but clear, specific prescriptive targets for the agency to achieve. We have got down not only to the number of jobs that we expect the agency either to create or secure but to sub-regional targets, which I very much welcome.
I should like to remind the House that, on Thursday, the Secretary of State said:
I shall require that at least 50 per cent. of the jobs safeguarded or created by the agency to be outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors."—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 461.]
So far, it has been argued that development has favoured the south-east and the north-east. Such planning is prescriptive. We are saying to the agency, "Thou shalt put 50 per cent. of all jobs and the expenditure that goes with them in certain specific areas in the Principality." Although I support that—the Secretary of State's announcement was widely welcomed—I think that it produces an interesting concept of detailed prescriptive targets which I thought were inconsistent with high Thatcherism.
As we have targets and the Secretary of State made the case for them on Second Reading, we should be enlightened on the definition of the sub-region about which we are talking. What is the eastern M4? At which junction does it become the western M4?

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Bridgend. Mr. Rowlands: Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
We should also have a definition of the M4 corridor. How wide is it? I am fascinated by the prescriptive targeting that has emerged from the Secretary of State's thinking, but we need closer definitions.
Now that the discussion of detailed, prescriptive targets has started, I would like to propose some more targets. I shall direct my remarks to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, because I hope that they will soon establish with the Welsh Development Agency

targets for the next few years. However, my remarks may be valid during the Secretary of State's few remaining weeks of tenure. If targeting is now in fashion, we should ask the agency to reach other targets.
First, I would like one target to be restored. We used to have a specific target for the reclamation of derelict land by 2000. That clearly defined target has been pushed aside, but I hope that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will consider restoring it. In the debate last Thursday and in our debates on the Bill, concerns emerged that, whatever success the agency has achieved, with LG and Halla Engineering, the Welsh still have the lowest disposable personal income in the United Kingdom and the lowest gross domestic product per capita. Therefore, I see no reason why a future Secretary of State should not seek to establish targets to improve those figures by a certain date.

Mr. Denzil Davies: That is Stalinism.

Mr. Rowlands: I am merely describing targets like those that the Secretary of State has suggested. If we can have geographical targets, we can ask the agency to achieve economic targets.
The Welsh economy differs from those of most other regions and nations in the United Kingdom in another respect. Everybody says that future development in the world economy will come from small and medium companies, not larger ones. All the figures that I have seen show that Wales has a low proportion of small and medium companies, especially in manufacturing. The UK figure for companies with under 200 employees is 45 per cent., but the Welsh figure is 32 per cent. Small and medium companies therefore play a smaller role in the Welsh manufacturing economy. A significant target would be the promotion and development of small and medium manufacturing companies as a future base for the Welsh economy. That might also be an important Welsh Development Agency target.
I was fascinated by the new concept of prescriptive targeting by a Tory Secretary of State. I can imagine the howls of protest that would have come from Opposition Members if a Labour Secretary of State had talked about such targets—they would have called it old socialist planning—yet a Tory Secretary of State is targeting and planning, even in a sub-regional fashion, as much as any previous Government.
I welcome the Government's conversion to those concepts, because I still support those concepts. 1 believe in the role and function of Governments. I represent a community that is living proof that government matters, because when Governments did nothing we suffered; I believe passionately in targets and in government, and therefore in the role that the agency can play.
I have identified one or two of the targets that a future Labour Government could adopt. In describing them, I may also have revealed the daunting legacy that we shall face when we come to power within the next couple of months.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad to take part in the debate, albeit late in the passage of the Bill. I have had an interest in Welsh Development Agency legislation from its earliest days. My only regret is that


the Secretary of State is not with us on Third Reading, to accept our felicitations on today's news that, even though he may not be able to find a seat or be elected in Wales, he has found a future wife there. I am sure that we all congratulate him on that.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) went back to the days in 1975 when the original Bill was debated. There was total opposition from Conservative Members to the creation of the agency: they were against it, lock, stock and barrel, because it would be interventionist and might affect the workings of the free market economy.
One of the Conservative party's wiser acts after coming to office was to realise that one does not throw the baby out with the bath water, and that the WDA had the potential to do a great deal of good for Wales. The Welsh Development Agency may not have had the resources that the Bill will give it, and may not always have had the guidelines that we would consider necessary for it to make an impact on the Welsh economy; none the less, it has been an extremely important body and has a future role that may be even more significant.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney spoke about targeting. I, too, was interested in the fact that the previous target allowed up to 80 per cent. of the new jobs that were coming to Wales to be concentrated in two small corners, the south-east and the north-east, which represent 10 per cent. of the land area of Wales and include about 30 per cent. of the unemployed.
Now the position is that 50 per cent. of the jobs will exist within 90 per cent. of the land area, and 50 per cent. will be in an area with 70 per cent. of the unemployed. That is a move in the right direction, but it does not solve the problem. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was right to ask about the definition of the two areas. Is it to remain the same, and on what basis has it been reached? It is not a statutory basis, and this has not been defined formally at all.
We gather that the boundary runs along the M4, from the border with England as far as Bridgend, and that, in the north, Alyn and Deeside and Wrexham are included, but not Prestatyn. If those are the limits, presumably areas that are crying out for new jobs, such as the Cynon valley, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhondda in the south, or Point of Ayr and Prestatyn, which are in the north-east but need the jobs, will miss out on the 50 per cent. that are available.
How will the Government ensure that jobs come beyond the defined area, to places that need them, such as Dyfed in the west—in the south-west, in Pembrokeshire, there have been areas of high unemployment for many years—Ammanford and the Amman valley further east, and Holyhead and parts of the old Gwynedd in the north-west?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I intervene to try to assist the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, the House. For the purpose of the WDA's strategic guidance and targets, the eastern M4 is defined as the coastal strip from Chepstow in the east to Pyle in the west. The northern boundary is coincident with the southern boundary of the programme for the valleys area, extended east to include the southern half of Monmouthshire. In north Wales, the eastern A55 corridor is defined as the non-rural part of the Wrexham county borough council area, the whole of Flintshire and the

northern part of Denbighshire, including the towns of St. Asaph, Rhyl and Prestatyn. I have had a map of the eastern M4 and A55 corridors placed in the Library.

Mr. Wigley: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. There has been a small change from the map used by the WDA previously, and that underlines the need for these matters to be defined so we know exactly where we stand.
Assuming that we have clearly defined areas, the other question that arises—which is even more relevant to the Bill—is, "How will the resources to be made available by the legislation be used to achieve the Government's objective?" The objective, as described by the Secretary of State for Wales the other day, was that there would be a mechanism to enable those areas further to the west—perhaps the old coalfield areas in the industrial south of Wales or the western side of Dyfed or Gwynedd—to receive resources to make up for their difficulties in attracting industry.
I should be glad if the Minister will tell us how the money to be provided by the Bill will be used. What will be the mechanism? What will be the constraints? Will it be possible to use those resources as the Secretary of State suggested? It is not good enough to give generalities. The areas with full development area status, intermediate status and no benefit at all are defined in legislation, and the resources have been fairly tightly defined. If, by virtue of the Secretary of State's statement, it will be possible to have more resources per job in the areas of the west without development area status to make up for the loss that they would otherwise experience and to enable them to compete on an even footing with areas with full development area status, that is significant. Presumably, that statement has been cleared with the European Union, because questions of competition clearly arise.
I hope that the Minister can give a categorical assurance that the mechanisms have been cleared and defined and will be available to make sure that every location trying to get reasonable development—Dyfed, Gwynned, the western parts of Glamorgan, the old coalfields, Neath and the Rhondda and Cynon valley areas, all of which have had high unemployment in the past—will have adequate incentives to attract industry which would otherwise take the easy option and locate in the south-east or north-east corridor of the M4. If the Government cannot give a statement along those lines, it will be a question for an incoming Government after the general election. We know that those areas need to be targeted, but that is not happening.
I turn briefly to another matter raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney—the balance of priorities in using resources. There is a balance between money going to inward investment into Wales and the need for investment in companies that are already located in Wales. Small and medium companies often need the same helping hand, but they undoubtedly feel that they miss out. In my part of Wales, small companies say that one has to be a big Japanese or Korean company to get help from the WDA.
The WDA is not interested in small companies. That may not be a fair reflection on the WDA, and I understand the importance of the 6,000 jobs that come with projects such as LG; I do not disparage that. However, if they grow, our small acorns can be valuable contributors to the economy. They have the advantage of being scattered


around Wales so that they benefit several areas and, as they are rooted in Wales, they are unlikely to decide to pack up at the first ill wind of economic depression. We must ensure that there is an equal balance in using the resources that the Bill provides to help small indigenous companies in a way to which perhaps not enough attention has been given in the past.
My final question concerns the Opposition spokesmen rather than the Government. How will oversight of the WDA's use of its funds, the balance between investment in large companies from outside and small companies, and the geographical distribution of the resources available, be handled under the elected assembly that Labour is committed to introducing? Will it be done by absorbing the WDA, and the resources that go with it under the Bill, in the apparatus of government under the assembly? Will there be an arm's-length relationship or will it be done by the present quango state? I suppose, hope and suspect that there will be a change, but it would be helpful to know. In using resources, which I assume will be available to the Welsh Assembly in due course, it is important that we have accountability and the fine tuning of policy necessary to meet the requirements of unemployed people in every part of Wales.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was right. Wales is at the bottom of the league table of gross domestic product per head of all the countries and regions of Britain, not including Northern Ireland. That respects a decline from 92 per cent. of GDP per head a generation ago to only 83 per cent. now. That does not reflect well on the success of Government policies in recent years. I hope that we will get not only the resources given by the Bill but a dynamic commitment to rejecting unemployment as a factor in the economy and ensuring full employment in every part of Wales, and a determination by virtue of that to raise the income per head of the people of Wales to an acceptable level. That is the background against which we should see the Bill. If it plays such a part, it will be helpful; if it does not, the same areas will suffer for decades to come.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I shall be brief because I want to touch on matters already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). On Second Reading, the Secretary of State discussed setting targets to increase the performance of the WDA in areas outside the narrow confines of the M4 corridor and the eastern end of the A55 corridor. He gave a commitment to increase the target for creating and securing jobs outside those areas from the present 20 per cent. not merely to the 32 per cent. that he claimed that the WDA was already achieving, but to 50 per cent. I welcome that.
My constituency has the second highest unemployment level of any travel-to-work area, not only in mainland Britain but in Northern Ireland. Only Cumnock and Sanquhar has higher unemployment than south Pembrokeshire. It is interesting that the third worst area is also in the western periphery of Wales: the Holyhead travel-to-work area. I welcome anything that targets resources to achieve a significant increase in the number of jobs secured or created in those areas.
As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, as well as setting targets, the Secretary of State gave a commitment on how the resources would be used to achieve those targets. He said
Secondly, I am asking the WDA, within agreed UK and European limits, to recognise the extra costs of locating in some areas by providing more assistance to companies locating in those areas than to equivalent projects elsewhere."—[Official Report, 10 February 1997: Vol. 290, c. 80.]
I ask the Under-Secretary to confirm tonight how that aim would be achieved.
Would a company that located in the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—which, given the boundaries that the Minister announced a few moments ago, would be eligible for additional resources—receive the same per capita funding as a company that located in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)? Would it receive the same grant as a company locating in my constituency, which is some 70 miles further west? Would there be a gradation of assistance as the companies located further afield? The same question applies on the north Wales coast, towards Ynys Môn.
The Under-Secretary owes us an explanation. We agree with and welcome the targets, but how will they be achieved? The Secretary of State said that different grants would be offered. Is he saying that, the more peripheral one gets, the more grant one receives? I should welcome that idea, as I have the most peripheral constituency. The Under-Secretary must make it perfectly clear how the targets will be achieved.
If the grants are not graduated in that way, constituencies with the worst unemployment problems and the worst structural long-term unemployment—such as my constituency and Ynys Môn, and particularly the two travel-to-work areas of Holyhead and south Pembrokeshire—will think that the Government's rhetoric is meaningless. We need specific, additional help. If there is no true gradation, and a job in Port Talbot, Aberavon or Holyhead receives the same grant aid as one in Pembroke Dock or Wrexham, there will be no great incentive for any new investment in the far west. Labour Front Benchers will also have to decide how to tackle the structural problems of the peripheral areas in the far west. I welcome the Minister's comments on that matter.
After the statement on 10 February, my local newspaper carried a front-page story saying that help was on the way. I told the reporter to be careful: I warned that Christmas had not arrived early and that we needed to see the details. I fear that, despite the WDA's best intentions in trying to push significant inward investment further west and the fact that investment may improve along the M4 or the A55 corridors, unless it has the resources to achieve that aim, the areas with the highest unemployment will not see the major investment that is required to address their structural problems.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Like the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), I offer my felicitations to the Secretary of State on his engagement. I am sorry that he is not here to receive those felicitations, but perhaps it is because he was a bit shy of receiving them that he decided to absent himself.
I understand that the Western Mail was in two minds as to whether to run the headline this morning, "Offa's Tyke Joins Welsh Establishment", but decided against it for good reasons. We shall watch carefully to see whether the Welsh Development Agency decides to invest in some Welsh gold mines now, if the Secretary of State orders an especially large engagement ring for his new fianée.
I shall now discuss the Bill, and especially the issues that have arisen tonight, on how one resolves the differences between what has emerged of the Secretary of State's promises, as to how he will distribute WDA resources differently geographically. That subject was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) in the annual Welsh affairs debate—the St. David's day debate, as we sometimes call it—last week, on 27 February 1997 at column 462. He drew attention to the attempt to push investment and new job creation preferentially westward, and to some extent northward, by creating what one might loosely call a Mason-Dixon line. South-east Wales would have a lower priority than south-west Wales, the former having received the benefits of LG and certain other recent investments—Ocean Technical Glass, Newport Wafer-Fab and so on—and now that, perhaps more modestly, north-east Wales has received the benefits of the expansion of JCB, Hoya Lens and so on, investment would be pushed further west along the A55.
The problem is that, to do that, one must know whether sufficient resources are available to make it possible. Although the Bill extends the WDA's parliamentary financial limit by £400 million, if, as is likely, the Bill is passed—we shall not oppose it—the issue will remain of how much of those resources is left uncommitted, with which to execute the new policy of pushing investment further north and west. What is the point of issuing a ringing declaration about directing new WDA investment preferentially to areas that have not benefited very much in the past couple of years, if there are no resources to do so?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) has asked the Minister to tell us how much of the WDA's budget is uncommitted as things stand: uncommitted in this case meaning, I believe, on a commonsense basis—uncommitted to the known projects, in other words, to LG, Newport Wafer-Fab, JCB, Halla Fork-Lift Trucks, the expansion of Sony in Bridgend or any other investments that have been announced.
The Secretary of State is making a grand pronouncement about his intention to bias the agency's operations so as to push job creation further west: further into the valleys, further west into north Wales and west Wales, and into Pembrokeshire because of its unique difficulties following the problems of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, the Sea Empress disaster, defence cuts and the oil refinery closure, but how can that be done if all the resources have been fully committed? We have not yet received an answer to the question that was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East in column 462 in last week's annual debate on Welsh affairs. That question has arisen repeatedly during tonight's Third Reading debate.
What resources are available to the Welsh Development Agency, via the Bill, the public expenditure survey process and so on, with which to carry out the

commitment given by the Secretary of State to execute the grand new policy to try to develop the whole of Wales, not merely the south-east and north-east corner?
The WDA has the problem, not only of existing commitments, but of how the Welsh Office wants to define its relationship with the agency. In other words, does the Welsh Office see the WDA as an organisationally autonomous body, within the constraints of Treasury approval, approval from the Secretary of State and parliamentary debate once every five years, such as this debate? Does the Welsh Office envisage that within the normal constraints of parliamentary approval, the WDA should have a reasonable degree of operational autonomy, or should it work on the basis that every time it lands a big fish such as LG, it should go back to the Department for approval to spend the money? The Department would then give it a special handout, as happened last autumn in the winter supplementary estimate, and would say to the WDA, "Obviously, you have landed a big fish. You cannot handle that within your cash flow. Here is another £25 million, and a further £20 million for the next financial year."
That was never the original intention for the relationship between the Welsh Office and the WDA. In the past few years, the amount of finance given by the Welsh Office to the WDA has gone up and down like a yo-yo. The agency was virtually crippled by the previous Secretary of State and the forced asset sales policy, which took away the cash flow, its operational autonomy and its ability to handle all but the largest projects within its annual budget. Once the agency lost the cash flow from its rental income on buildings and land, it did not have operational autonomy.
We need to know from the Minister tonight whether it is now Government policy in the few remaining weeks of this Government to try to make the WDA totally dependent on the Welsh Office, so that every time it has a need for expenditure approved by the Welsh Office, it will ask the Welsh Office to give it some money from the general pool, as happened with the extra £25 million. I am sure that the Minister recalls that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked him where the extra £25 million that was awarded to the WDA last November came from. The Minister replied, "Within the usual flexibilities."
Is that the sort of relationship that the Welsh Office wants to have with the WDA? Does it want the WDA to ask the Department every time it wants to spend some money, rather than being operationally autonomous during the financial year, except in emergencies? "Within the usual flexibilities" is not sufficient to define the relationship between the Welsh Office and the WDA in the future.
Many speakers have referred to the problem of getting the balance right in Wales in terms of new job creation. Has south-east Wales, in particular, done almost too well for its own good, and is it straining the labour supply and the supply of specialist skills, such as those of engineers?
I saw a letter in the Western Mail that referred to the possible emergence of an almost continuous urban strip of a possibly undesirable kind, running roughly from Cardiff Wales airport, to the west of Barry, right through Cardiff, through Newport and on to the end of the steelworks at Llanwern. That was described as a newly emerging city called Bacardiport—made up of Barry, Cardiff and


Newport—giving the right yuppie image of people sipping sundowners while looking at their boat from their luxury pad, and so on.
That illustrates the danger of areas of Wales having prosperity levels that we usually associate with the south-east of England, while the rest of Wales would be left to fend for itself as dormitory areas or areas that remained dependent on welfare, and so on. We need to know more from the Government about how they intend to achieve the right east-west, north-south, valleys-coast balance in the work of the WDA.
Finally, I shall deal with the sums that the Government will make available via the Bill and its financial provisions. In Committee, at columns 12, 16 and 19, I guessed that under the terms of the Bill, using the Bill's definition of finance for the WDA, the WDA would require about £100 million in the year 1998–99.
The Minister did not want to answer in Committee, which is fair enough. We then received a letter stating that my figure was wrong, and that the sum was £102 million. I received a letter on 25 February stating that the figure would be £202 million, but that letter was withdrawn.
Given the excitement generated in the ministerial private office by all the talk of engagement and marriage, it may be natural and forgivable to make a few mistakes, but it looks as if the figure of £100 million was about right—within £1 million or £2 million of the correct figure. That means that, having given an additional £400 million to the WDA in terms of the financial limit, or having permitted that expenditure, we would be doing the same job again in about four years' time.
The Government have said that they will attempt to give us the indicative limits. We are not talking about fixed commitments, but the amount will be about £100 million in 1998–99, which means, obviously, that £400 million will be used up in four years. If, as the Minister said, the limit is only indicative, I do not see why he could not go a step further and say—as it was not a commitment—that the Government expected the £400 million to last for so many years.
It would be useful for everyone in Wales to know the Government's policy on the WDA. Its financing, and its dependence on the Welsh Office, should not be allowed to go up and down like a yo-yo. We have lived through that over the past few years: we have lived through a very serious situation. The previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), tried to wreck the WDA by forcing it to dispose of all its major saleable assets. He lowered the amount of finance required in the terms of the Bill to only £13 million in 1994–95. The present Secretary of State started off in the same mould, keeping finance to less than £20 million, until he found an extra £25 million last November. He is now rebuilding the agency, but he is doing so with post-dated cheques. It is important for us to be given a much clearer picture.
As for the WDA's financing of the Eurofreight terminal project between Cardiff and Newport, no money appears to be going in. The WDA has been asked to look after the terminal on behalf of the Secretary of State, but what is it actually doing? Consultants commissioned to act on behalf of the Secretary of State, but under the WDA's aegis, have reopened the whole issue of whether the

terminal ought to be between Cardiff and Newport or between Newport and the Severn bridge, or on Cardiff docks, or on the site of the existing freightliner terminal at Pengam moors.
That question was closed off by the Secretary of State, but the consultants for the WDA have said that they are reopening the issue, and that they are considering four sites rather than one. Is that because the Secretary of State has told the WDA to put off the decision? Has he said, "We have no money to fund the grant for the Eurofreight terminal anyway, so please delay this until after the election"? The Government are undoubtedly living in a post-dated cheque culture.
We want to know how the Mason-Dixon line is defined. We also want to know when the Secretary of State and his ministerial team expect Wales to move up from the bottom of the prosperity league table. We have plans to remove not only the democratic deficit but the prosperity deficit from Wales, by putting the WDA and its resources directly at the behest of the Welsh people, through the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to respond to as many of the questions that have been raised as I can in the short time that is left. First, let me thank the hon. Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for their kind congratulations on the engagement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will accept that it is understandable that, for once, he has not been in the Chamber for the entire debate.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West was concerned about the flexibility that—not unusually—we used to find more money for the Welsh Development Agency in-year. That was a result of end-year flexibility entitlements carried forward from previous years, a switch of resources from class XIV, vote 1, claims proving lower than expected for agri-environmental and farm conservation schemes, and cases of funds within vote 2. I am grateful to him for his forbearance on the difference between £101 million and £202 million. He gave one explanation. Perhaps it was merely nothing more than wishful thinking.
The hon. Gentleman asked about time limits. Since the debate in Committee, I have checked that, and I note that the current limit will probably last for about six years, whereas the previous limit lasted for three years. We feel that the limit proposed in the Bill is more than appropriate.
I am glad thatthe hon. Members for Caernarfon and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) have given me an opportunity to respond to their concern—it is one we hear elsewhere in Wales—about indigenous companies.
As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, one complaint we hear is, "You have to be a big Japanese or Korean company to receive help from the Welsh Development Agency". He will know, as will every hon. Member, that that is certainly not the case. It is Government policy, and it is the WDA's intention, to ensure that help is available to every company that can appropriately be provided for, be it an indigenous company or an inward investor coming into Wales.
A new target will be to focus attention for support for indigenous companies to go hand in hand with support for inward investors. The agency is required to secure additional business worth £24 million through its business development activities. Within the target of 12,500 jobs in total, 8,000 should come from inward investment, of which some 3,000 should be new jobs from overseas. Linked with the inward investment jobs target is the requirement to secure some £400 million in associated planned investment. The target for investment from all the agency's programmes is £600 million.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney also expressed concern about the opportunities for the debate in future, and suggested that only one and a half hours would be allowed. I have checked this, and one and a half hours should probably be regarded as the minimum for debate. It would be possible to have longer debates—subject, of course, to the Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to land reclamation. The aim of removing all major or significant dereliction in Wales by the end of the century was promoted by the agency some time ago. However, circumstances change, priorities are reviewed, and new projects come forward. Other factors can affect progress. For example, the full complexity of some schemes becomes apparent only after work has commenced. The target of removing all major dereliction by the end of the century was the agency's target, and not one reached by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) made a fascinating proposal about a gradation westward through Wales, from which he would very much have been the greatest beneficiary. I wonder whether he would invite even more trouble from his more easterly colleagues in trying to pursue that objective. We have told the WDA that it will have to act within agreed United Kingdom and European limits, but that we want it to recognise the extra costs to companies of locating in some areas by giving them more assistance than it gives equivalent projects elsewhere.
That matter is best taken forward by the WDA determining what it would recognise in the circumstances. I wish to encourage the hon. Gentleman not to be as overly negative on behalf of his constituency as he implies.

Mr. Ainger: What the Minister just said confirms again that it is far more difficult to locate businesses the further west one goes. There are higher costs and so on. He is again implying that there may well be a gradation in grant aid. Is it possible under the present restrictions to offer different levels of grant aid, using whatever criteria, between an area such as Pembroke and areas such as Llanelli or Aberavon?

Mr. Jones: That is a matter for the agency to consider. We have said that we want it to consider the extra costs involved—no more, no less. That is the best thing for it to take forward.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Jones: I give way to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

Mr. Rowlands: The most important and significant assistance is selective financial assistance. Will that reflect the geographical problems as well?

Mr. Jones: I want the agency to use all the weapons at its disposal, so that it can be effective. We now place great emphasis on the western corridors in north and south Wales.

Mr. Wigley: I want to develop that point. Will the agency make grant aid available? By and large, it has given loan aid. Many of the companies that are not in the regions with full development area status cannot obtain grants. Will there be a change either in the maps under the Industry Acts or in the definition of the WDA's powers to give grants as well as loans?

Mr. Jones: I am not going to invent legislation on the hoof, because we have stated our intention. We want the agency to recognise the extra costs involved in locating in north-west and west Wales. I am confident that the agency will achieve its targets, because it already has an excellent record on job creation in western and north-western parts of Wales.

Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: I wanted to refer to the hon. Gentleman's point about LG and the dependence of the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Morgan: I just want to ask the Minister to respond to my point about what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said last Thursday. On the question of how much uncommitted budget the WDA will have to execute under the new policy of pushing investment further west and north, the Secretary of State said:
The WDA has many commitments, but that does not mean that its entire budget is committed."—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 462.]
If its entire budget is not committed, how large is the uncommitted section?

Mr. Jones: I do not have that answer at my fingertips, but I shall be pleased to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him more information.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about whether the Welsh Development Agency would be totally dependent on the Welsh Office should something similar to the LG project be developed in the future. No, that is not my expectation. I expect the agency to continue to be a totally integrated part of the successful "team Wales" approach that we have taken, and which we will continue to take after the general election with even more success, without the extra bureaucratic costs and hurdles with which the hon. Gentleman would saddle Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That Sir Archibald Hamilton be discharged from the Standards and Privileges Committee and Sir David Mitchell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

PETITIONS

Scottish Borders Council (Financial Settlement)

Sir David Steel: On behalf of my constituents, I wish to present a petition, which has attracted more than 7,500 signatures of people in the Scottish Borders region. Never in my three decades in the House have I known such genuine anxiety about the quality of public services in our region, and that is reflected in the response to this petition.
The second part of the petition, which pleads for the capping limit to be raised, has already been agreed by the Secretary of State for Scotland since the petition was drawn up, and we are grateful for small mercies. However, the main burden of the petition remains, as the Scottish Borders council will meet later this week to carry out the unpalatable task of cutting what people regard as essential services. The petition reads:
The petition of the residents of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale constituency in the Scottish Borders declares that the financial settlement proposed for the Scottish Borders council for 1997–98 is inadequate to meet local needs and will lead to damaging reductions in the level of public services. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Scotland to review the settlement proposed for Scottish Borders council for the aforementioned year, and also urges the Secretary of State to revise the maximum capping limits imposed on the council for 1997–98.
I have pleasure in presenting the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I seek the leave of the House to lodge the Roxburgh and Berwickshire part of the regional petition that has been organised, explained and presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).
The first name in the Roxburgh and Berwickshire petition is that of 12-year-old Ross Oliver of Hillend drive in Hawick, who came to our meeting in Galashiels, and, in front of 600 people, explained that he hoped to be a professional swimmer when he was older, but could not do so if the local authority's proposed pool closures went ahead.
That petition and sentiment is also supported by Mr. Ronald Young, an athlete with learning difficulties who has won many medals, including a gold at the 1991 special Olympics. He too is worried about the closure of the Jedburgh pool, which will be proposed by Scottish Borders council at its meeting later this week. The petition reads:
The petitioners of Roxburgh and Berwickshire concur with the plea that has been made by the Members from Roxburgh and Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale that the petitioners request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Scotland to review the settlement proposed for Scottish Borders Council for the aforementioned year and also urges the Secretary of State to revise the maximum capping limits imposed on the Council 1997/1998.
I beg to submit the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Railway Safety

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The petition that I wish to present carries 4,200 signatures, many of them from my constituents in Preston and others from other residents of Lancashire and Cumbria. It draws attention to a new hazard faced by rail passengers. Whereas passengers were previously endangered by inadequate door locks on trains, now they face the problem of being inadvertently locked in prematurely, which can cause acute and hazardous distress to certain passengers and has triggered at least one death by heart attack. The petition reads:
To the House of Commons.
The humble Petition of the citizens of Cumbria and Lancashire declares that—Many people, including the old, infirm and disabled, as well as young people, have been "overcarried" from Oxenholme (Lake District) and other railway stations, due to the central locking of the doors and the very short stopping times of the trains. This has been aggravated by the fines imposed by Railtrack on the train companies for late running.
This "overcarrying" is traumatic and dangerous.
These fines are putting pressure on the railway staff who should be able to check that all passengers who wish to get off the train have done so.
The Petitioners respectfully ask the House of Commons to cause these changes to be made in the procedures on the country's railways, in the interests of passenger safety.
Simple on-train notices and audible announcements, with two-way radio for guards and conductors to communicate to enable the doors to be re-opened when necessary … the abolition of the fines levied by Railtrack.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
I beg to submit the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Road Traffic (Nottingham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful to have been granted this Adjournment debate about road traffic issues in Wilford, Nottingham. I do so because in many ways they seem to represent a microcosm of the transport clashes of interest that we would find in almost every major urban area. I do so also with some sadness, because this debate follows an extremely successful public meeting, at which it came out that many reasonable complaints, which appear to have been made over many years, have been completely unresolved or are still being disregarded by the Highways Agency, at which they were initially directed.
I want to break the issues down into two parts: internal transport and traffic movement on the estate, and the broader issue of trunk road traffic movements that affect the edge of that part of Wilford in Nottingham.
To take local issues first, there are clashes of interest between drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. The interests of vehicle traffic collide with environmental interests, public safety interests and public spending priorities. In some circumstances, the word "collision" is sadly appropriate and involves people colliding with vehicles. In others, it results in the victims of those clashes affecting other aspects of the problem, the most obvious being children travelling to and from school.
Many children on the estate have to travel along Wilford lane or Ruddington lane to reach the local secondary school. Most parents no longer allow their children to cycle to school.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Simpson: It is worth noting that, 20 or 25 years ago, eight out of 10 children would have travelled to the secondary school by bike. Today, however, one, or at most two, out of every 10 children cycle to school. It is not that they are uninterested in exercise or in travelling by a more responsible means; they and their parents know that far greater risks are associated with travelling to school by bike. Cyclists in Britain are 10 times more likely to be involved in a road accident than cyclists—adults and children—in Germany, for example, because we have forced vulnerable road users on to the same narrow roads on which the main and overriding priority always seems to be the car.
As a result, parents driving their children to school add to the other risks and the traffic congestion on the estate, not because they wish to do so, but because there are few safer alternatives on which they can rely to protect their children's health and well-being.
The accident statistics, particularly on Ruddington lane, make a sufficient case for recognising that it is a serious problem. In 1993, the county council conducted a survey of road traffic schemes. It found that more than 50 per cent. of cars on Ruddington lane were travelling at more than 35 mph and one in six cars were travelling at

more than 45 mph—this in a 30 mph zone with a secondary school right on the main road. The police and local authorities recognise that in no way could that be described as safe and sensible driving.
Between 1991 and 1996, there were two fatalities and six serious accidents. In addition, there have been numerous witnessed incidents in which people have narrowly escaped serious injury. One would have thought that there were grounds for local authority action. Neither the police nor the local authority has expressed indifference to the plight of local people in respect of traffic problems, but they have drawn attention to two problems: insufficient cash resources to do anything and the complexity of the rules, which appear to exclude far more possibilities than they include.
For example, this year we asked for two initiatives to be taken, one involving traffic-calming measures on Ruddington lane and the other involving a pedestrian phase in the traffic lights at the junction of Ruddington lane and Wilford lane. Our first thought was that it could be paid for out of the transport supplementary grant, but the council pointed out that all the money had been allocated to what was referred to as the "Greater Nottingham (package bid) area" and that capital funds for minor schemes would therefore be devoted to areas outside the city boundary.
We therefore examined what would be available from the Greater Nottingham package funding programme. However, it was made clear that that funding was available only for the strategic road network. As neither Wilford lane nor Ruddington lane is part of the strategic road network, funding from the package was not applicable to the problems faced by people in the Wilford area.
We then thought that it might be appropriate to pursue the matter in another context—under supplementary credit approvals, which the Government make available for their local safety scheme. However, that approach also drew a blank. In a letter, the county council stated:
The Highway authority has the ability to bid for monies for traffic calming schemes … However the funding does not come in the form of grant but as part of Supplementary Credit Approvals … The Department of Transport's Guidelines on this matter are quite clear—'The resources earmarked must be used to deal with locations where there have been recurrent accidents in the last three years, which can be reduced by engineering measures. They are not intended for sites where there appears only to be a risk of accidents'.
The dilemma—the Catch-22 or strike three position in which Wilford residents were caught—is that, although statistical evidence on accidents is available, it is not sufficient for the previous three-year period to trigger entitlement to the supplementary credit approval schemes.
There is ample evidence of accidents that were averted or of near-misses, yet we have the absurd position in which we have to wait for serious and predictable accidents to occur before money is triggered so that we can prevent them from recurring. We are essentially looking for people who will volunteer themselves or a member of their family to be seriously injured so that we can protect the rest of the community. I really cannot understand the logic of such a situation.
In policing practice over the past few years, the police have quite rightly said that crime prevention is better than crime detection; that, although stolen items may be recovered, people never properly recover from the effects


of being burgled; and that it is better to implement measures to prevent burglaries from occurring. The same logic should apply to accidents. It is better to avoid accidents by design rather than waiting for them to happen and then introducing policies to clear up the mess, yet "prevention" is clearly not the framework within which the current rules were made.
It seems that only minute obligations are built into the ways in which moneys are passed to local authorities to ensure public safety. There are more rules to exclude one from entitlement than to include one. Moreover, access to those funds is triggered by accidents or by death rather than by calculations of avoidance. It would be helpful if the Minister would re-examine the rules to determine whether we can find a more sensible starting point.
In trunk road policies, the problems faced by Wilford residents have been seriously compounded by the improvements to the A52—Nottingham's ring road—which is a major conduit for traffic coming into and going around the city. No one disputes the importance of the ring road, although whether the improvements were done in a manner that minimised disturbance to local people is another matter. Those complications have added to local residents' frustrations. Local people believe that the Highways Agency has pursued an almost bizarre twist of logic in assessing noise impact and their compensation entitlements.
The effects of improvements on that part of the trunk road system have been enormous, and have been particularly bad for the residents of Bradbourne avenue, in Wilford. I am particularly indebted to Mr. and Mrs. Mason, who have fought not only their own cause but that of many others who have to deal with very high levels of noise and air pollution shrouding every aspect of their daily lives. It has turned the urban dreams of many into urban nightmares.
Residents have to face unacceptably high levels of noise every day. As if that were not bad enough, the worse news is that the noise levels are set only to increase. The Minister will know that a base noise level of 68 dB is needed to trigger noise compensation, together with a 1 dB increase in noise levels expected during the following 15 years and resulting directly from the improvements to the trunk road system.
The noise level assessments in 1994 for properties on Bradbourne avenue, Newholme drive and Barnfield were, respectively, 70.4 dB, 76.3 dB and 77.5 dB. That is before the additional calculations for the growth of noise impact in the 15 years ahead. Those noise levels qualify the properties to get over the first hurdle, but not the second, of a 1 dB increase. After enormous difficulty, we obtained answers from the Highways Agency about the calculations that it used for that assessment: all come just under the 1 dB increase.
Some of the ways in which those figures have been arrived at leave me bemused. It is worth looking into the difficulties that the Highways Agency puts in the path of people who are trying to find out the basis of the calculations. The Highways Agency says that it has used the low growth estimates for traffic growth and noise growth. I know of no trunk road improvement that has failed to hit the high growth levels that were feared. The success of a trunk road improvement can be measured

partly by how rapidly the additional road space is filled up. That has been the compelling argument for further trunk road improvements. Whether that is a sensible choice is a separate matter, but to assume that only the low growth figures will apply is absurd. The high growth figures would bring about a 2 dB increase in noise levels, which would automatically entitle a greater number of people thus affected to compensation in the form of noise insulation to their properties and environmental improvements in the area.
I have been able to raise the matter only as a result of doing a huge amount of work and putting great pressure on the Highways Agency to get the information. Local people were not able to get the information despite their persistent, reasonable and courteous inquiries to the Highways Agency. One of the strongest criticisms about the culture in the Highways Agency is that it appears to run on a premise of coned-off thinking that excludes the public from access to legitimate information about plans for future road improvements and any assessment of their impact.
The Highways Agency also appears to run on an Alice in Wonderland use of words—that words will mean no more than it chooses. First, it told local residents that there had been no road widening. During our negotiations and exchanges, however, it was accepted that there had been road widening. The agency cannot say that the incorporation of what was previously the hard shoulder into the main carriageway is other than an extension of that carriageway. It has not altered the parameters of the road, but it has increased the size of the carriageway quite significantly.
There has also been a recognition that road widening has occurred on a 40 m stretch of road very close to the Bradbourne avenue part of the Wilford estate. In addition, alterations to the Clifton underpass immediately in front of the estate have added an extra lane to the A52 and the trunk road going out—on the A453—towards the motorway. An extra lane of trunk road traffic is now part and parcel of the intersection that touches the edge of the estate.
My concerns about how the matter has been managed go through a series of fairly simple stages. As I read the law and regulations governing the matter, it became clear that the Highways Agency ought to have conducted an impact assessment on all properties within 300 m of the end of the trunk road improvement. Clearly, that has not happened. If one draws a line showing a 300 m radius, it becomes clear that a tranche of properties on the Wilford estate was never included in any impact assessment. In that sense, the Highways Agency failed to carry out the statutory duty imposed on it by the House and by Ministers' regulations. That failure has denied residents in that part of the Wilford estate information from the assessment that they should have had at the start of the scheme. Even the current findings are still inaccessible to people, because of the way in which the calculations were made; yet the way in which the agency has tried to say that there have been no significant alterations to the trunk road is bizarre.
I should like to raise with the Minister the notion that the agency may also be pursuing a way of avoiding compensation by making improvements by increments. Let me explain how this works.
If the Minister and I bought properties at the end of a long stretch of road and over 15 years the traffic on that road increased, it might be unreasonable for either of us to claim compensation for such natural growth on a road that was there when we arrived. I would probably think that it would be presumptuous of us to lodge such a complaint. If, however, back down the road, the improvements that have taken place on the A52 had occurred, I think that both the Minister and I would be a bit miffed.
First, a major underpass at the Queens Medical Centre and university intersection reduced congestion and enabled traffic on the A52 to flow much more quickly, effectively and in greater volume. The next significant stage of the improvement was the Dunkirk flyover, which was supposed to speed up traffic flow, reduce congestion and increase traffic volumes, and has done so fairly successfully. The third part of the improvement was to add an extra lane to the Clifton underpass. That has speeded up traffic flow and provided an extra lane on the southbound carriageway, which separates traffic at an earlier stage so that two lanes of traffic can still join the ring road and two can swing round out towards the motorway.
All the improvements have been fairly successful, but if the Minister and I owned properties just beyond the end of them, I suspect that we would both argue that each of the improvements materially affected the traffic flow past our properties. It would not matter whether the pavements or whatever in front of our properties had been tinkered with; all the improvements in the tranche of road that preceded our properties would significantly change the nature of the road.
That is precisely what has happened to the residents in Wilford and in part of the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the continuation of the A52. However, the Highways Agency tried to argue that all those improvements should be ignored because they happened at earlier stages. It said that earlier increments could be written off and that calculations of impact should not carry through.
In addition to the natural traffic growth, there has been serious growth by design and construction on the A52. There has been growth in volume, speed and noise. I do not argue against that, but the effect of those changes on the environment in which people live should be acknowledged. It should also be reflected in compensation.
The Highways Agency is supposed to advertise to invite claims by those who have suffered from noise intrusion or loss of value. The agency chose to advertise in two free newspapers and one other newspaper that circulates only at the other end of the city. If people in Nottingham were asked which was their local newspaper, 99 out of 100 would say that it was the Nottingham Evening Post; yet that was the one newspaper in which the Highways Agency chose not to advertise. It is hard to escape the common conclusion that that was a strategic choice to deter claims for compensation rather than encourage them.
The budget for environmental repair forms only a minute part of the multi-million pound cost of today's trunk road improvement schemes. I ask the Minister for his assurance that he will consider several key points about strengthening this element.
Will the Minister consider raising the status of non-motorists' interests in road scheme budgets? Could a designated minimum of 5 per cent. of the budgets be earmarked for environmental repair and improvement? Could local authorities determine the placing of compensation advertisements? Will the Minister investigate the Highway Agency's negligence and its failure to undertake the statutory impact calculations for the Wilford area? Will he review the use of incrementalism as a way of avoiding compensation claims? Will he also make a commitment to a shift in emphasis—to public protection rather than budget protection—in the trunk road improvement programme, and to recognise the reality of the impact of high growth on people's lives?
It would be a real help too if, within the guidelines for the appropriate local government budgets, commitments were made to prioritise public safety over faster traffic; to allow integrated budgets that would facilitate sensible movement of moneys towards identifiable priorities; and to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that public safety and environmental protection are the preconditions of road improvements rather than their first victims. If the Minister could make those commitments, he would be thanked not only by the people of Wilford but by people throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I shall consider carefully the points that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made at the end of his speech, and I will send him a more considered response than I can achieve off the cuff this evening. We try to build environmental features into all major trunk road schemes in mitigation of their effects. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not believe that we have succeeded in the scheme that he mentions.
I shall start with trunk roads. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is more familiar with the ones that he mentioned than I am, but I acknowledge that the traffic flows on those trunk roads have grown strongly in recent years. The A52 at present carries a daily flow of some 44,000 vehicles on the section to the south of the A453 junction, and the section to the north of the Clifton bridge is used by up to 76,000 vehicles each day.
The A52 to the north of the river crossing has recently been widened from a dual two-lane road to give three lanes in each direction. The Clifton bridge has been reconfigured to give four lanes in each direction. That work was completed in March 1995 and the extra capacity has been welcomed by road users in Nottingham but, as the hon. Gentleman explained, not so enthusiastically by those who live near it.
Major maintenance has also been carried out on the road both north and south of the river crossing. Through Wilford, the reconstruction has raised the level of the road by up to 8 in. Existing noise fences were therefore renewed and set at higher levels to compensate for the change in the height of the carriageway.
Those works to the A52 have brought entitlement to compensation under the terms of the Land Compensation Act 1973, for the effects of increased traffic noise and other nuisance. I shall certainly investigate what the hon. Gentleman said about the way in which entitlement to compensation was advertised. It is generally our practice


both to advertise and to cover such matters in a press notice, so that it can be reported as a news item. I shall investigate whether that was done in this case.
Claims are still being lodged by local residents and so far more than 300 have been received, two thirds of which have been processed. The total paid in compensation to date is about £17,000, and the average payment per successful claim is around £550. Compensation is set independently by the district valuer with recourse to the lands tribunal in the event of an unresolved disagreement.
The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 cover the provision of offers for noise insulation necessitated by new or altered roads. The hon. Gentleman referred to some difficulties in agreeing a definition of improvements that fall within that compass, but I hope that the matter has been resolved satisfactorily.
The works carried out on the A52 did not bring any statutory entitlement to noise insulation. The hon. Gentleman explained the reason: the increase in noise fell short of the 1 dB required. Only one property was insulated: a restaurant to the north of the river. That insulation was offered because of the expected high levels of noise during the carrying out of the works rather than because of the effect of the road in use.
There is discretionary power to offer noise insulation, but the Highways Agency does not make offers where the expected increase in noise is low, as is forecast in this case, even though the absolute level of noise is already high. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has taken up many of the detailed issues about the calculations with the chief executive of the Highways Agency and that that correspondence is continuing. If it does not come to a successful conclusion, he can revert to me on that matter, too.
The agency does not try to withhold information about how the calculations are done, but I, as a non-technical person, have sometimes found its explanations extremely difficult to follow. It is certainly the case that a layman, as I consider myself to be in this instance, cannot really understand the calculations unless he has an expert to monitor and validate what is being explained.
The Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport announced on 5 February their decision to approve the A453 Clifton lane improvement, following consideration of the inspector's report into the public inquiry. The scheme has a long history that the hon. Gentleman knows, and I am aware that he has not supported it. It has, however, been approved through the full democratic processes and it is still our view that it offers the most sustainable and economically robust solution to the trunk road problem.
It is obviously for the county council and, after April this year, for the city council as a new unitary authority, to manage the non-trunk network. As the hon. Gentleman said, a package bid for Greater Nottingham was first accepted by the Department in December 1994. It remains one of the most successfully supported packages within shire authorities, with £1.3 million of supplementary credit approvals allocated in the current year, and we are happy to continue that level of support into 1997–98.
Within the package, the local authority has considerable flexibility about which elements it progresses. The proposals include park and ride schemes, bus priority measures, traffic calming and cycling and pedestrian schemes. From what the hon. Gentleman said, I gain the impression that he felt that the authority—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.